## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00002 - CV THE STATE OF TEXAS A ND JERRY PATTERSON A S COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND COMMISSIONER GEO RGE P. BUSH, APPELLA NT S V. JIMMY GLEN RIEMER, R ICHARD COON, JR., JU NE MEETZE COON TRUST, HAP JOHNSON R EALTY CO., LLC, AND W.R. EDWARDS, JR. D/B/A W.R. EDWARDS, JR. OIL AND GAS, ET AL., APPELLEE S

On Appeal from the 84th District Court Hutchinson County, Texas Trial Court No. 30,441 - B, Honorable Curt Brancheau, Presiding



### February 15 , 2019 ORDER Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and P ARKER , JJ. In this interlocutory appeal, appellants the State of Texas, the General Land Office of the State of Texas, George P. Bush, Commissioner, and former commissioner Jerry Patterson (hereinafter collectively “GLO”) challenge the trial court’s order denying the ir plea to the jurisdiction. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2018) (permitting the interlocutory appeal of an order granting or denying a governmental2

unit’s plea to the jurisdiction). The dispute in the underlying lawsuit primarily concerns the boundary between the State - owned riverbed of the Canadian River in Hutchinson County and the riparian surface and mineral interests of appellees Jimmy Glen Riemer, et al . Because of the pendency of the interlocutory appeal all proc eedings in the trial court are stayed. T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014(b) (interlocutory appeal under subsection 51.014(a)(8) stays commencement of trial and “all other proceedings in the trial court”). Appellees have filed a motion asking us to modify the stay of proceedings in the trial court so they may seek that court’s appointment of a receiver to manage the disputed property and oppose the Texas Railroad Commission’s effort to plug abandoned oil and gas wells on the property. The GLO respo nded in opposition to appellees’ motion, pointing out the Railroad Commission is not a party to the underlying suit, and contending resolution of the riverbed - ownership dispute has no bearing on the Railroad Commission’s legal obligation to plug inactive o r abandoned wells; appellees’ motion to modify the stay is an improper collateral attack on a Railroad Commission order; and a challenge of the Railroad Commission’s plugging operations must be pursued according to rules and statutes governing plugging. I n their reply to the GLO’s response, appellees emphasize their request for appointment of a receiver to “operate the wells and thereby remove them from the inactive status that triggered the intended plugging.” They deny their motion is a collateral attac k on a Railroad Commission order but even were that correct, they continue, the trial court should have the opportunity to appoint a receiver to operate the wells. Appellees further assert that by joining the Railroad Commission, if3

necessary, all issues can be addressed jointly and it is in the best interest of the GLO and appellees to avoid expending public funds for plugging the wells. The statutory stay of section 51.014(c) arises automatically and is absolute. Superior HealthPlan, Inc. v. Badawo , No. 03 - 18 - 00691 - CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10797 (Tex. App. — Austin Dec. 21, 2018, per curiam order). A trial court has no discretion to ignore its effect. In re Texas Educ. Agency, 441 S.W.3d 747, 750 (Tex. App. — Austin 2014, orig. proceeding). Appellate Rule 29.3 grants an appellate court discretion to make temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights until disposition of the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 29.3; see also City of Sealy v. Town Park Ctr. , No. 01 - 17 - 00127 - CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 810 6, at *2 n.1, *5 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 24, 2017, no pet.). And in one instance we exercised our discretion to modify the stay for the limited purpose of allowing the continued operation of a temporary order of the trial court authorizing a c ourt - appointed master to review bills and submit them to the trial court for final approval and payment. State v. Signal Drilling, LLC , No. 07 - 17 - 00412 - CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 727 (Tex. App. — Amarillo Jan. 23, 2018, per curiam order); compare B ishop v. Ci ty of Austin , No. 03 - 16 - 00580 - CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13920, at *1 (Tex. App. — Austin Sep. 20, 2016, per curiam order) (modifying the stay on a joint motion for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to sign confidentiality orders) with Badawo , 20 18 Tex. App. LEXIS 10797 (refusing to modify the stay so that appellee could pursue motions to sanction appellants and their counsel; dismiss their notice of appeal; and compel discovery responses). The modification of the stay appellees seek here dramati cally exceeds that we authorized in Signal Drilling, where we merely lifted the stay to permit continued compliance with a trial court order made prior to the interlocutory4

appeal. Signal Drilling, 2 018 Tex. App. LEXIS 727, at *2. Appellees seek to expan d the litigation in the trial court by pursuing appointment of a receiver, and by seeking relief that would require joining the Railroad Commission as a party to oppose its proposed plugging operations. Accordingly, in light of the facts and law discussed , we deny appellees’ motion to modify the stay. It is so ordered. Per Curiam