1



# NO . 01 - 15 - 00712 - C V

IN TH E COURT OF APPEAL S FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF T E XA S IN R E IN R E DIOGU KALU DIOGU II, LL.M.

RELATOR 

# OR I GINAL PRO C E E DI N G FROM CASE NUMBER 13- DCV-204732 IN THE 387 TH 

# DISTRI C T COURT F ORT

BEND OUNTY TEXAS
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAM U S

DIOGU KALU DIOGU II, LL.M. TE X AS BA R NO. 24000340 P. O. BOX 994 FULSHEAR, TEXAS 77441 (713) 791 3225 (832) 408-7611 (FAX) AT TORN EY FOR DIOGU



### OR A L ARG UMENT R E Q U ESTED ACCEPTED 01-15-00712-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/20/2015 2:26:43 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2 IDE N TIT Y O F PARTIES AND COU N S E L P u rs u a nt to Texas Ru le of A pp e ll ate Pr oce du r e 5 2

. 3(a), t h e f o ll ow in g i s a

co mpl ete l i s t of all p a r ti es, and the n a mes a nd ad dre sse s o f a ll c o unsel:

Relator: Diogu Kalu Diogu II, LL.M. CO UNS E L F O R R EL A T O R Diogu Kalu Diogu II, LL.M. Te x as Ba r No. 24000340 P. O. Box 994 Fulshear, Texas 77441 Pho ne: (713) 791 3225 (832) 408

- 7611 (fax)

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST Ms. Yaowapa Ratana

- Aporn ATTORNEY FOR F ORMER REAL PART Y IN INT E R E ST Mario Martinez Law Offices of Mario A Martinez PLLC 23123 Cinco Ranch Blvd #208 Katy TX 77494 RESP O N DEN T The Honorabl e Brenda Mullinix, Judge Judge of the 387th Judicial District Court Fort Bend County Justice Center, Courtroom 3H, 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Richmond, TX 77469 Telephone: 281

- 238

- 3290 Fax: 281

- 238

- 32893 T A B L E OF CONT E NTS Page Id e ntit y of P a rti e s an d C oun se l

................................ ................................ .......................... 2 St a tem e nt of th e C a s e ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3 St a t e m ent of Jurisdicti o n ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6 Sta t e m ent Regarding O ra l Argume n t
.......................................... ... ........................................... . 7 Statement of the Facts

.......................................... ... .............................. ........................ ............ . . 9 Summary of the Argument

................................. ................. ......... ... .................................... ...... 1 0 Argume n t
... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 1 A

. The trial court cl ea rl y abuse d its discretion b y conducting a Show Cause hearing on May 20 th , 2015 and issuing an Order on June 25 th , 2015 following the May 2015 hearing modifying the July 10 th , 2014 Discovery Sanction Order an Or der o v er w hich th e tri a l court lo st pl e n a r y po w er more than n ine months ago ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .... 11 I. Mandamus St a ndard

................................ ................................ ....... 1 1 I I. A tr ia l court's " inherent a uthorit y " cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists

........................................................................... ... . 1 2 Pra y e r ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 3 C er t i f i ca t e o f C oun se l

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2 1 C erti f i c ate of S ervic e................................................................................................ . .................. 1 34 TA B LE OF AUTHORI TI ES CASES PAGES Custom Corporates, Inc. v. Sec. Storage, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. App.

- Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.)( Citing In re Sw. Bell Tel.Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex.2000)). 11 Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tex.1979) ......................................12, 13 Hj a lmarson v . Langley, 840 S.W.2d 153, 154

- 55 (Tex. App.

- Waco 1 9 92 , orig. proceeding) , a dopted in r e l ev ant part a nd o v errul e d i n par t o n other gr o u nd s, S c ott & Whit e M e m . Ha s p . v. Sch e xnid er

, 940 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) ....................................11 In re S w . B e ll Tel. C

o. , 35 S

. W

. 3d 602 , 605 (Te x . 2000)

.................................... .. ....................... 4 In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3 d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex.2004) (orig. proceeding)

.. . 4 In Re Toyota Motor Corporation , No. 10

- 11

- 00050

- CV (Tex. App. Nov. 16, 2011)

... ... ...... 13 In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 210

– 11 ( Tex.2004) ( citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839)

........................................................................................................................... ... 12 In re N. Am. Refractories Co. , 71 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2001, orig. proceeding)

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... .14 K

- M a rt Corp

. v. Sa nd e r

s o n, 937 S

. W

. 2d 429 , 431 (Tex. 199 7 )

............................................. . . 6 Lane Bank Equipment Co. v. Smith Southern Equipment, 10 S.W.3d 308, 311 (Tex.2000) ( citing Hjalmarson v. Langley, 840 S.W.2d 153, 55 (Tex. App.

- Waco 1992, orig. proceeding))

......................................................... ..................... ................................................... 13 Scott & White Mem'l Hosp. v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594, 596 & n. 2 (Tex.1996)

...... . ... 13 Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding)

...................... 11 STA TUTES AND RULES T e xas G o v ernment Code § 22

. 221 (b)

..................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 65 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nature of the Case. The underl y ing proc e eding in v ol v e s t h e trial court ' s May 20 th , 2015 contempt hearing and a June 25 th , 2015 Order modifying a nearly one year old discovery Sanction Order to add a contempt language solely i n Order to Hold Diogu in C ontempt for a v iolation s of a d i scover y order entere d on July 10 th , 201 4 , about n ine ( 9 ) months after she lost plenary power in the case Respondent/District Court. T h e H o norabl e Brenda Mullinix , Jud ge o f th e 387th Di s trict C ou r t , Fort Bend Count y , T e xas Order which relator seeks relief The trial court issued a n order under Cause Number 13

- DCV

- 204732 on April 21 st , 2015 against Diogu to show Cause on the Court’s July 10 th , 2014 Order; c onduct ed a show Cause hearing on May 20 th , 2015 and modifies the July 10 th , 2014 Discovery Order on June 25 th , 2015 to add Contempt language for the sole purpose of holding Diogu in Contempt a bout nine months after she lost plenary powers6 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This C ourt h as jurisdictio n to iss u e the requeste d writ of man dam us u n d er T e xas G o v ernment Code § 22

. 221 (b) b ecause t h e dec i sion b elo w re p resent a c l e a r abuse of di s c r e t io n for w hi ch t he r e is no ad equat e appe lla te rem ed y . K

- Mart Corp

. v. Sa nd e r s o n, 937 S

. W

. 2d 429 , 431 (Tex. 199 7 )

.7 ST A TEMENT REGARDING OR A L ARGUMENT

.
T his c ase pre se n ts important qu e stion s reg a rdin g a tri a l court’ s pl e nar y po we r ,
a nd inherent authorit y, R el ator s respectfully su g g e s t that oral argu me nt w ould b e help f ul in r esol v ing th at issu e .8 ISSUE S PRESEN T ED

1. Did th e trial court cl ea rl y abuse its discretion in conducting a Show Cause hearing on May 20 th , 2015 and issuing an Orde r on June 25 th , 2015 following the May 2 0 th 2015 h e aring modifying the July 10 th , 2014 Discovery Sanction Order by adding a contempt language in page 2 Paragraph 4 , beginning with “ Diogu Kalu Diogu I I must

... and ending in the las t page with Diogu Kalu Diogu II ” to an Order o v er w hich th e tri a l court lo st pl e n a r y po w er more than about n ine months ago.9 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS On or about May 12 th , 2014, the Court entere d a Final Judgment on Yaowapa Ratana Aporn's Counter Claim against Diogu Kalu Diogu II (“DIOGU”) and the Court lost Jurisdiction over the case on August 11 th , 2014.
O n or about May 30 th , 2014, Diogu filed Request for Finding of Facts and Conclusion of La w with Notice of Hearing and the Court denied the request on the same day it was filed. See attached Exhibit “A” On or about June 06 th , 2014, even though he knew that the request for the finding of facts and conclusion of law filed by Diogu was denied by the court on the same date that it was filed, Mr. Martinez filed what he titled Counter Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Request for Show Cause Hearing against Diogu K Diogu II. See attached Exhibit “B” On or about June 11 th , 2014 Diogu filed his moti on of new trial. On or about Diogu filed a scheduled vacation notice pursuant to the Fort Bend County Local Rules. See attached Exhibit “C” Nonetheless Mr. Martinez set a hearing on his motion to show cause for July 01 st , 2014 knowing that Diogu was out o f the Country with a vacation letter on file. See attached Exhibit “D” Diogu also filed a motion for Continuance. See attached Exhibit “E”10

The Court disregarded both Diogu’s vacation letter and motion for continuance conducted a hearing on a so called “Ju dgment for sanction against Diogu on July 01 st , 2014 1 . See attached Exhibit “F” On July 10 th , 2014, the signed and entered what she termed Judgment on Yaowapa Ratana Aporn's Motion for Sanction and Show Cause Hearing against Diogu Kalu Diogu II See attac hed id. On or about August 11 th , 2014 Diogu filed his notice of Appeal. See attached Exhibit H ”
But o n or about April 21 st , 2015, a b out ( 9 ) months after the Court had lost plenary powers over the case and the p re judgment discovery Sanction the Counter Plaintiff's filed a Motion for Contempt and Request for Show Cause Hearing against Diogu K. Diogu II See attached Exhibit I ” On or about May 20 th , 2015 the Court conducted a show cause hearing and modified the July 10 th , 2014 the Sanction Order to inclu de some contempt language. See Attached Exhibit “J ” which the Court termed “clarified” Order acknowledging that she lack the authority to modify the Discovery Order. Because of the modification this writ of mandamus ensues.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The tr ial court's Show Cause Order of April 21 st , 2015 and the m odified Discovery Sanction order of June 25 th , 2015 are void. First, under well

- settled law, th e trial court lost plenary power over the underlying case on August 11 th , 2014

. Texas Courts Appeal and the Texas Supreme Court have made it clear that a sanctions order entered after

1 This was essentially a pre

- judgement discovery sanction11

plenary jurisdiction has expired is void. Hj a lmarson v . Langley, 840 S.W.2d 153, 154

- 55 (Tex . App.

- Waco 1 9 92 , orig. proceeding) , a dopted in r e l ev ant part a nd o v errul e d i n par t
o n other gr o u nd

s, S c ott & Whit e M e m . Ha s p . v. Sch e xnid er , 940 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam). It necessarily follows that an order issued in furtheranc e of a poss ible future order r e garding sanctions i s void a s well as the resulting Sanction Or der. Such an ord e r i s not onl y an abuse o f discretion , but i s also presum e d to lack a n adequat e remed y b y appea l

. In re S w . B e ll Tel. C o. , 35 S

. W

. 3d 602 , 605 (Te x . 2000).

ARGUMENT A. DID THE TRIAL COURT CL EA RL Y ABU SE ITS DISCRETION B Y CONDUCTING A SHOW CAUSE HEARING ON MAY 20 TH , 2015 AND ISSUING AN ORDER ON JUNE 25 TH , 2015 FOLLOWING THE MAY 20 TH 2015 HEARING MODIFYING THE JULY 10 TH , 2014 DISCOVERY SANCTION ORDER BY ADDING A CONTEMPT LANGUAGE IN PAGE 2 PARAGRAPH 4 , BEGINNING WITH “ DIOGU KALU DIOGU II MUST ... AND ENDING IN THE LAST PAGE WITH DIOGU KALU DIOGU II” TO AN ORDER O V ER W HICH TH E TRI A L COURT LO ST PL E N A R Y PO W ER MORE THAN N INE MONTHS AGO

. MANDAMUS S TANDARD Mandamus relief is proper only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex.2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion when it re aches a decision s o arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. Id. at 840.Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion and may result in mandamus. Id. The issuance of a void order is an abuse of discretion. Custom Corporates, Inc. v . Sec. Storage, Inc., 207 S.W.3d12

835, 838 (Tex. App.

- Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.)( Citing In re Sw. Bell Tel.Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex.2000)). Mandamus is proper when the trial court issues an order that is void because it is issued after the tri al court's plenary power has expired. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d at 605. Absent extraordinary circumstances, mandamus ordinarily will not issue unless relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 210

– 11 (Tex.2004) ( citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839). However, cases involving void orders present a circumstance warranting mandamus relief. Id . When an order is adjudged to be void, a relator need not additionally show the lack of an adequate remedy by appe al. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d at 605.

B. A TR IA L COURT'S " INHERENT A UTHORIT Y " CANNOT CONFER

JURISDICTION WHERE NONE EXISTS In addition to the express grants of judicial power to each court, trial courts possess certain “inherent powers” which are “ woven into the fabric of the constitution. “See Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tex.1979).“The inherent judicial power of a court is not derived from legislative grant or specific constitutional provision, but from the very fact that the court has been created and charged by the constitution with certain duties and responsibility. Id. The inherent powers of a court are those which it may call upon to aid in the exercise of its jurisdiction, in the administration of justice, and in the pre servation of its independence and integrity. See Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d at 398. The power exists to enable our courts to effectively perform their judicial13

functions and to protect their dignity, independence, and integrity. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d at 3 98
– 99. However, inherent power is not a substitute for plenary jurisdiction. See Lane Bank Equipment Co. v. Smith Southern Equipment, 10 S.W.3d 308, 311 (Tex.2000) ( citing Hjalmarson v. Langley, 840 S.W.2d 153, 55 (Tex.App.

- Waco 1992, orig. proceeding)); s ee also Scott & White Mem'l Hosp. v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594, 596 & n. 2 (Tex.1996) (stating that a court cannot issue an order of sanctions after its plenary power has expired). Nor does a trial court's inherent judicial power confer jurisdiction where none
pre - exists by statutory or constitutional grant. See Hjalmarson, 840 S.W.2d at 155. Regardless of Diogu’s failure, if any, to comply with a discovery order, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to pursue a contempt hearing or modify the July 10 th , 2014 Order to include a contempt language o f the possible violation of a discovery order long after its plenary power has otherwise expired. See also, In Re Toyota Motor Corporation , No. 10

- 11

- 00050

- CV (Tex. App. Nov. 16, 2011). ( Holding that the trial court's order appointing a “special counsel” is void because it was issued after the trial court's plenary power had expired)
F urther, the July 10 th , 2014 Discovery Sanction Order is void ab in i tio because it was entered while Diogu was on a vacation pursuant to Fort Bend County Local Rule. A court must continue a trial if a local rule mandates that the lead attorney is entitled to a continuance when a case is set for trial within the period designated by the attorney in a14

vacation letter, regardless of when the order setting the case for trial was signed. See In re N. Am. Refractories Co. , 71 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2001, orig. proceeding). Also compare Exhibit “ C ”

- “ F ”
PRAYER F or the foregoing r easons, the Cour t should grant this Petition for Writ of Mandamus , v acate t he trial court ' s Order of June 25 th , 2015 and in s t r uct th e trial court
to t a ke no f urther a ction, and award Relato r all other relief to which th ey are justly entitled. Respectfully submitted,
By:

_ /S/Diogu Kalu Diogu ii

_ Diogu Kalu Diogu II, LL.M. State Bar No. 24000340 P. O. B ox 994, Fulshear, Texas 77441 Telephone (713) 791 3225 Telecopier (832) 408 7611 CERTIF I C AT E OF COUNSEL I c e rtif y, in a c c or d ance with Te x a s R u l e o f Appellate Procedure 2.3U ), that I h av e

re v ie w ed th i s p et iti on a nd concluded that eve r y factual stat e men t i n the petitio n i s sup ported b y compe te nt ev idence includ e d in t he appendix or reco r d. By:

_ /S/Diogu Kalu Diogu ii

_ Diogu Kalu Diogu II, LL.M. CERT IF IC AT E O F SERVICE I hereb y certif y that on August 20 th , 2015 , a true and correct co of the for ego ing
pe tition for Writ of M a ndamus and Appendix was served by Personal Delivery Fax to15

Respondent
T he Judge Brenda Mullinix 387 th District Court Fort Bend County Justice Center 204 South Bu f falo Avenue Richmond , T exas 77406 By:

_ /S/Diogu Kalu Diogu ii

_ Diog u Kalu Diogu II, LL.M. State Bar No. 24000340 P. O. Box 994, Fulshear, Texas 77441 Telephone (713) 791 3225 Telecopier (832) 408 7611