i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No. 04-07-00662- CV P ROTOTYPE MAC HINE COMP ANY ,

Appellant
v. Toledo P. BOULWARE , Individually and as Tr ustee; Dos Ang eles, L .P.; Za ch and Ka yla Da vis ; D MC Pa

rt ne rs , Ltd. ; Will ie Jo Do ole y , L .P. ; H ay de n G . H a by and Do ri s Y . H a

by ; H ayd e nG
. H a

b y, J r . an d

D e n n e t t e H a

b y C o a t e s ; M e l an i e an d

J o h nJ o n e s i nT h e i r

C a p a c i ty a s Join t Re pr e se ntativ e s o f T he B e n Jon e s Jr. Es tate and B e n Jon e s Sr . E state ; McDa niel Fa rms, Inc.; J ewe l F. Robinson and 4-S Ranch; Kinney County Groundwater Conservation District; and Da rlene Shahan in Her

Capac ity as Ge nera l Manag er of

Kinney County Gr ound wate r C on se rv a tio n D istri c t; Appellee s Fr om the 63rd Judi cial District Court, Kinney County , Texas Trial Court No. 3469 Honora ble Mickey

R. Pennington, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elin i, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: April 8, 2009 REVERSED AND REMANDED This appea l arises fr om the trial court’ s order striking a ppellant’s plea

in intervention. In an opinion and judgme nt dated Dec ember 17, 2008, we conclude d that beca use appe llant was denie d
no tic e of the mot ion to str ike and an op po rt un ity to be he ard on the mot ion to str ike , we mus t r e ve rs e04
- 07
- 00 66 2- CV

1 ... T he f

ul l procedur al back gr ound of t he un derl y i ng d i s put e b et ween t he D i s t r i ct an d t he A pp l i can t s i s s et fo rt h i n t hi s co urt ’ s o p i ni o n i n K i n n ey C o u n t y G ro u n d w a t er C o n serv a t i o n D i st
. v. B o u l w a re , 238 S. W
. 3d 452 ( T ex. A p p .— S a n A n to n io 2 0 0 7 , no p e t.). In th a t c a se , a p a n e l o f th is c o u rt c o n sid e re d a n a p p e a l f ro m the d e n ia l o f a p le a to t h e j u r i s di c t i on f

i l e d b y t h e Di s t r i c t a n d Da r l e n e S h a h a n . The c ou r t a f f i r me d t h e t r i a l c ou r t ’ s or de r de n y i n g t h e pl ea b ecause t he D i st ri ct ’ s p l ea t o t he jur i sdi ct i o n f ai l ed t o de m o nst rat e t he t ri al co urt l acked s ub ject m at t er j uri sdi ct i o n.

- 2- an d re m an d fo r f urt h er p ro ce ed i n gs . T h e ap p el l an tan d ap p el l ee s al l fi l edm o t i o n s fo r r eh ea ri n g, which we deny . Howeve r, to addre ss an arg ument raised by appellee s on rehe aring , we va cate our
ear lier judg ment, withdraw our ear lier opinion, and issue this opinion and judgment in their pla ce. BACK GR OUND Appellee , Kinney

County Groundwater Conservation District (“the District”), r egulates g roundwater withdra

wals in Kinney

County , and issues per

mits t o authoriz e the c ontinuation of

“ his tor ic ” and

“ e xistin g ” be ne fi c ia l, n on -w a ste fu l us e s o f ground wate r f ro m th e Ed

wa rd s- Tr ini ty
a qu i f e r . Ap p e l l an t , P r o t o typ e M a c h i n e C o mp an y ( “ P r o t o typ e ” ) , i s a l an d o w n e r

i nK i n n e y C o u n ty, Te xas an d hold s a pe rm it t o w ith dr aw gro un dw a te r. Ap pe lle e s, To le do P. B ou lw are , Ind ivi du a lly and as Trustee ; Z ach a

nd Kay la Davis; DMC Partner s, L td.; W illie J o Dooley , L .P.; Hay den G. Ha by
and Do ri s Y . H a

by ; H ay de n G . H a

by , Jr. and

De nn e tte Ha

by Coate s; M e lanie and J oh n J on e s in The ir Ca p a c it y a s Jo int R e p r e s e n tati v e s o f T h e B e nJo n e s Jr
. E s tate an d B e nJo n e s Sr
. E s ta te; Mc Da nie l F arm s, Inc .; Je we l F . Ro bin so n a nd 4- S Ra nch (c oll e c tiv e ly , “ Ap pli c ants ” ) a re a lso Kinney County landowner s and applica

nts for existi ng and historic use pe rmits. In J uly 2005, the Applicants sued the District and the District’s former Gene ral M anag er, Dar lene Shaha

n, on various cause s of ac tion arising out of the District’s administrative pe rmitting de c isi on s r e latin g to t

he App li cants’ pe rm it a

pp lic a tio ns . 1 Af

te r p ro tr a c te d li tig a tio n in bo th s tate
and fe de ra l c ourt s, the Di str ic t and the Ap pli c ants a g re e d to me diatio n, wh ic h c omm e nc e d o n July04
- 07
- 00 66 2- CV

- 3- 17, 2007. By

August 13, 2007, the parties ha d rea ched a settlement agr ee m en t o n all issues and prepa red a n Ag ree d Final Judgment a nd M u tual Release of Claims. The District posted notice of a boar d meetingto be held o n August 16, 2007 at 5:00 p.m., at which time the District’s boar d of dir e c tor s w ou ld f

or ma lly c on sid e r a

pp ro va l of the se ttl e me nt do c ume nts
. Th e Di str ic t’ s n oti c e a lso stated that the trial c ourt would conduc t a hea ring at noon on August 17, 2007 to consi d er the settlement. At approximately

4:30 p.m. on August 16, Prototy pe filed a plea in intervention, pl ea to the jurisdiction, and reque sts for dec larator y relief . At approximately

5:00 p.m. that same day , the District board me eting commence d. Prototy pe attended t h e b oard me eting and cr iticiz ed the
se ttl e me nt. F oll ow ingpu bli c c omm e nt, the Di str ic t’ s b oa rd a pp ro ve d th e se ttl e me nt. On Au g us t 17 , th e Di str ic t and the Ap pli c ants joi ntl y mov e d to str ike Pr oto ty

pe ’s ple a in intervention. Prototy

pe did not attend the August 17 he aring , during which the trial court c onsidered and then g rante d the m otion to strike. At this same hea ring , the cour

t also considere d the settlement ag ree ment proposed by

the par ties, and on Septembe r 6 , 2 0 0 7 , the cour t signe d the Ag ree d Final J udg ment. On September 13, 2007, Prototy pe filed a motion for new tria l raising the issue of lac k of notice of the m otion to strike. The mot ion for new t rial was overr uled by operation of law, and this appeal e nsued. On appea l, Prototy pe raises a number of complaints, including that the trial cour t
err ed by striking its intervention. DI SCU SSIO N T ex as R u l e o f C i v i l P ro ce d

u r e 6 0 p ro v i d es t h at “[ a] n y p arty m ay i n t erv en e b y

fi l i n g a pleading , subject to beingstricken out by the court for sufficie nt c ause on the motion of any party .”04
- 07
- 00 66 2- CV

- 4- T EX . R. C IV . P. 6 0. A p e rs on ha s th e ri g ht t o inte rv e ne if the int e rv e no r c ou ld h ave br ou g ht t he same
a c tio n, or any pa rt the re of , in his ow n name , or, if the a c tio n ha d be e n bro ug ht ag a ins t him, he wo uld b e a b le to d e f e a t r e c o v e r

y , a t le a s t in p art. Gu a r a n t y F ed

. Sav. Bank

v. HorseshoeOp. Co. , 793 S.W .2d 652, 657 (Tex. 1990). An intervenor is not required to sec ure the trial court’ s permission to intervene ; instead, the par ty who opposes the inter

vention b ea rs t h e b urden to c halleng e the intervention by

a motion to strike. Id. Wit hout such a motion, the trial cour t abuses its discretion in striking a ple a in int er v en t ion. Id. After a motion to strike a plea in inter vention is filed, the int e rv e no r s ho uld

be g ive n a

n o pp or tun ity to e xpla in, and sh ow pr oo f of , his int e re st i n th e laws uit
. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Pe nnzoil Co. , 866 S.W .2d 248, 250 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, no writ). Prototy pe asse rts the trial court abused its discr etion by g rantingthe motion to st rike whe n Prototy pe had no notice of the he aringon the District’s a n d Ap p l i cants’ motion t o strike and no op po rt un ity to r e sp on d to the a lle g a tio ns ra ise d in mot ion to str ike
. We a g re e . Th e Rul e s o f C ivi l Procedur e re quire that “ [e] very . . . motion . . . to t he cour t for an ord er , wh et h er in the form of a mot ion , p le a

or oth e r fo rm of re qu e st, un le ss pr e se nte d duri ng a he ari ngor

tr ia l, s ha ll b e fi le d w ith the cler k of the c ourt in writing, sha ll state the g rounds there for, sha ll set forth the re lief or or der soug ht, and at the same time a true copy shall be served on all other parties, and shall be noted on the docke t.” SeeT EX . R. C IV . P. 21. Rule 21 also require s that “[a]n application to the cour t for an order and notice of any hear ing thereon, not prese nted during a hear ing or trial, shall be ser

ved upon
a ll o the r p art ie s n ot l e ss tha n thr e e da y s be fo re the tim e sp e c if

ie d f or the he ari ngun le ss o the rw ise provided by these rule s or shortene d by the cour t.” Id. Be cause Prototy

pe did not rec eive a

ny notice04
- 07
- 00 66 2- CV

2 ... O n r ehe ar i ng , appel l ees ar gu e a n i nt er ven or, su ch as P r ot ot y pe, t ake s a s ui t as i t f i nds i t ; t her ef

ore, wh en P rotot y p e f

i l ed it s i nt ervent i o n o n the eve o f the A ugust 1 7 he ari ng, it d i d so sub ject to t he exi st i ng c o urt c al end ar. T he appe l l ee s c on cl u de t h at T ex as Rul e of Ci v i l P roce du r e 21 t h er ef or e al l owe d t h em t o mov e t o s t r i k e t h e i n t er v en t i on d uri ng t he A ugust 17 heari ng wi t ho ut pri o r not i ce t o P rotot y p e. O n thi s reco rd, we canno t a gree w i t h a p p el l ees. T he cl er k’ s r ecor d on appeal does not co nt ai n any sch edul i ng o r der or ot her not i ce f r om t he t r i al cour t t hat a h ear i ng was s et f or Au g u s t 17, 2007. N or doe s t h e t r i al c ou r t ’ s doc k et c on t ai n a n y i n di ca t i on t h at s u ch a h ea r i n g w ou l d be h el d.

- 5- of the he aringon the motion to st rike, P rototy pe wa s denied the oppor

tunity to expl ain, and show pr oo f o f, its int e re st, if

any , in the laws uit
. 2 There fore , we must reve rse the tr ial court’s or der a nd
re mand thi s c a us e fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice