### NUM BER 13-09- 0004 0-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
IN RE: HELENA

CHEM ICA L COM PA NY
On Peti tion for Wr it of M andamus and M ot ion fo r Emerg en cy R elief 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

Op in io n b y

J u st ic e Ga rza Rel ator , H ele na C hemic al Compan y ( “H ele na” ), has fil ed a p e ti ti on for w ri t of
m a n d a m u s a lle gin g th a t res p o n d e n t, th e Ho n o ra b le Mar io E. Ra m ire z Jr., pre sid in g jud ge of the 332n d J udi ci al Di str ict C our t of H id a lgo C ounty , Tex as, abus ed hi s d is creti on by deny ing H ele na’ s mot ion to str ik e the pl ea i n i nter v enti on of real p a rt ie s in int erest , Vi ncent e Perez , Ev arado Pe re z , C lau dio Perez , and Gerardo Perez( colle ctiv ely “ the Perez es” ) and by

deny ing H ele na’ s motio n t o recons ide r. W e c ondi ti onal ly g ra nt t he peti ti on. I. B A CKGRO UND This peti ti on ar is es from “ tox icso up” l it ig ati on i n w hic h tho usand s o f plai nti ffs ( the “orig ina l p la in t if

fs”) sought d am ages f rom o v er thirtydefend ant s, alleging tha t the y w ere har med as a resul t of pes ti ci des eman a ti ng from t he former H ay es- Sammons chemi calT he t r i al cour t si gned one f i nal j udgm ent wi t h r espect t o t he m i norand n o n c o m p o s m e n tis pl ai nti ffs 1 and one f ort he r em ai ni ng p l ai nt i ff s. 2 pla nt i n M is si on, Tex as. W e hav e been ask ed on sev eral occ asi ons to g ra nt manda mus
re li ef in conn ect ion w it h this case. See In r e Al li ed Chem . C or

p. , Nos

. 13- 08- 00206- CV& 13- 08- 00678- CV , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 5 57 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Christ i Ja n . 27, 2009,
or ig . proceed ing ); In r

e Al li ed Chem . C or

p. , No. 13- 08- 00554- CV , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 242 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti Jan. 15, 2009, or ig . proceed ing ); In re All ied Chem . C or

p. , No. 13- 04- 00491- CV , 200 4 Tex . Ap p. LEX IS 9931 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti N ov . 4, 2004, orig. proceed ing). On N ovemb er 16, 2 004 , having bee n de nied relief in this Court, the defend ant s in the under ly ing suit—i ncl udi ng Hele na—fil ed a peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus w it h the Tex as Supreme Cou rt , cont endi ng that the tr ial co ur t had abus ed i ts dis creti on by co nsol ida ti ng the claims of

f iv e plain tif

fs and failing to comp el t h o se plain tif fs to respo nd to certain int er ro g ator ies w ith in a reaso nabl e ti me before tr ial

. See In r e Al li ed Chem . C or

p. , 227 S.W .3d 6 52, 6 55 ( Tex . 200 7) ( or ig . proceed ing ). Ac company ing the peti ti on w as a moti on to s tay the under ly ing p roceedi ng s. The s upreme co urt g ra nted the mot ion to sta y on March 28, 200 5, orde ring tha t “[a]ll und erly in g proce edin gs are stayed in Cause No. C4885- 99- F, sty led Alicia A cevedo, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Com pan y, et al. , i n the 332nd D is tr ict C our

t of H ida lg o C ounty , Tex as, pendi ng furth er order of thi s C our

t.” W hil e the peti ti on for

w ri t of m andamus w as pendi ng before the supreme cour t, and pr ior to the s upreme co urt’ s g ra nti ng of the mot ion to sta y , H ele na reache d a s ettl ement ag re ement w it h the or ig ina l pla int iffs. The p ar ti es to the settl ement ag re ement then soug ht the t ri al cour

t’ s a pprov al of the ag re ement w it h respect t o the min or and non com

pos
m ent is plaintif fs. On March 11, 2 005 , af ter hea ring argume nt and testim ony, the trial court
announc ed i ts approv al of the s ettl ement ag re ement. T he tr ial co urt s ubseq uentl y si g ned final j udg ments on M arch 28, 2 005, the same daythat the sup re me cou rti mposed a s tay 1 of the pro ceed ings.S ee su pra not e 1. 2 3 Taki ng note of t he “p ro cedural anomal y ,” and act ing “i n the ex erci se of cauti on,” Helena f iled a “Motion to Lif t Sta y for Lim ited Purpose ” w ith the suprem e cou rt on August 21, 2005, in w hic h it aske d that the Cour t “l ift its stay

order entered on Ma rc h 28, 2005, for the ex press pur pose of en ter ing final jud g ment” pursuant to the settl ement betw een H ele na and t he or ig ina l pla int iffs. O n Aug ust25, 2006, the s upreme co urt g ra nted the mot ion and li fted the sta y

i n par t. Amended final j udg ments a p p ro v ing the settl ement ag re ements 2
w ere s ig ned by

the tr ial co urt on September 22, 2006. T he Pe rez es f iled the ir plea in intervention in t rial court cause num ber C-488 5-99 -F on Apr il 20, 2006, after the st a y w as impos ed butbefore the a mended final j udg ments
w ere entered w it h re spect to Hel ena. In the ple a, the Perez es made cl aims as wrong ful death benefic iar ies of Amparo Perez , w ho resi ded nea r the H ay es- Sammons pest ic ide pla nt an d di ed of can cer on A pr il 20, 2004. On J une 15, 2007, by

a fiv e- to- four dec is ion , t he s upreme co urt g ra nted the pe ti ti on for w rit of

man dam us f iled on Nov em ber 16 , 200 4 by H elen a an d the o the r defend ant s. In r e Al li ed , 227 S.W .3d a t 655

. The major ity h e ld that “i n mass tor t c ases i nv olv ing hundreds of pa rt ies and compl ic ated caus ati on q uest ion s, a tr ial j udg e c oul d notpos tpone respo nses to b asic discovery u ntil shortly before trial.” Id. (cit in g Able Supp ly Co. v. Moye , 898 S.W .2d 766, 772 ( Tex . 199 5) ); but s ee id. at 664 ( Jefferson, C .J. , di ss enti ng ) (n oti ng that pla int iffs had al re ady su ppl emented thei r dis cov er y respon ses and mandamus w as ina ppropr iat e bec ause the c ase w as moot)

. Acc ompany ing the ru li ng w as an order l ifti ng the stay of

the trial court pro ceed ings fo r all purp oses. Helena subse quently filed a mo tion w ith the t rial cou rt to st rike the Pe rez es’ plea in int er v enti on, cont endi ng that iti s v oid bec ause itw as filed w hil e the su preme co urt’ s s tay
w as in effect

. The tr ial cour t deni ed the moti on to str ik e on Oct ober 27, 2008, and den ied
a mo tion to reconside r on Janu ary21, 20 09. Helena th en f iled the instan t pet ition for w rit of mandamus on Janua ry 22, 2009, chal len g ing both of thos e ru lin gs. On Ja nuar y 23,4

200 9, w e granted H e le n a ’s e me rg ency motio n for stay and ordered all tri al court proceed ing s s tay ed as to Hel ena onl y unti l further

order of thi s C our

t. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW Ma ndamus w il l is sue to cor re ct a clea r abus e of di sc re ti on for w hic h the remedy by appeal i s i nadeq uate. In re Pru de n t ia l In s
. C o
. o f

A m. , 1 4 8 S

. W

. 3 d 1 2 4 , 1 3 5 -3 6 (T e x. 2 0 0 4 ). At ri a l court abu ses its discretion w hen it acts in an un reaso nab le or arbitrary
ma nne r; or, stated dif

feren tly , w hen it acts w ithou t referen ce to g uiding rules and principles. See, e.g., Beaum ont B ank, N.A. v. Bul ler , 8 0 6 S

. W

. 2 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 6 (T e x. 1 9 9 1 ). Ad d it io n a ll y,
an abuse of dis creti on oc curs w hen t he tr ial co urt c lea rl y fail s t o anal yz e or

appl y the law
cor re ctl y
. W

alk er v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 8 33, 8 40 ( Tex . 199 2)

. I n t h e co n t e xto f

d e t e rm in in g wh e t h e r a p a rt y h a s a n “a d e qu a t e ” a p p e ll a t e re m e d y, “‘adequa te’ . . . has no comp rehe nsive def inition; it is simply a proxy for the ca ref ul bala nce of j u r i s p r u d e n t i a l c o n s i d e ra t i o n s t h a td e t e r mi n e w h e n a p p e l l a t e c o u rt s w i l l u s e or ig ina l
ma nda mu s procee dings to rev iew the act ions of

low er courts.” In re Pr udenti al , 148 S.W .3d a t 136

. W hether an a ppel lat e remedy

is “ade q uate” so as to precl ude mandamus
re v iew depends heav il y

on the c ircums tanc es present ed and is bett er g uid ed by

g eneral pr inc ipl es than by si mple ru les

. Id. a t 1 3 7 . In In r e Pr udenti al , t he s upreme co urt not ed that: Ma ndamus re v iew of signi ficantr uli ng s i n ex cept ion al cas es maybe ess enti al to [ 1] prese rve im por tant subs tanti v e and procedu ra l ri g hts from impai rmentor

l oss , [ 2] all ow

the appel lat e courts to g iv e neede d and hel pful direct ion to the law that w oul d other w is e prov e elu si v e in appeal s from final jud g ments, and [3] spare pr iv ate par ti es and the publ icthe ti me and mone y utter ly w ast e d endur ing ev entual rev ersal of improper ly co nduct ed proce edin gs. Id. at 136. Hel ena c lai ms t hat, shoul d i t be improper ly co mpell ed to remain as a par ty to the under ly ing l it ig ati on, i t woul d be subj ectto “e xtreme preju dic e” be ca u se it “ w oul d be
re q uired to par

ti ci pate in burdenso me di sc ov er y and tr ial of potent ial ly

. . . 1,900 pla int iffs.” W e ag re e. The tr ial co ur t’ s o rd ers c ompel He len a to defend ag ain st the c lai ms made by5

the Perezes, desp ite the fact th at Helen a alread y settled w ith all of

the original plaintif

fs. Con si der ing the fact that ov er nin e y ears hav e ela psed si nce the o ri g ina l pla int iffs first filed
s ui t, w e fi nd g oo d rea s on t o be l i ev e th att he i ns ta ntc as e i s “ ex c ep ti on al ” i n th atmu c h “ ti me and money ” w oul d be “u tter ly w ast ed” if the tr ial cour t er re d. See i

d. I n s uch a s it uati on, Hel ena woul d be re q uire d t o l it ig ate t he c ase to i ts conc lus ion and, i f an er ro r occ ur re d, could pursue a reme dy only on direct app e a l. W e con clude thatthe level of harm p o t e n t ia ll y su f

fe re d b y He le n a in su c h a si t u a t io n is su f f ic ie n tt o m e ri tm a n d a m u s re vie w. III
. D I S CUS S I ON Helena claims tha t the Perezes’ plea in interve n t ion vi olate d the suprem e cou rt’s stay, and th erefore tha t the trial court’s o rders of Octob er 27, 2 008 , den y ing H elen a’s
mo tion to strike the plea , and Janu ary21, 20 09, den y ing H elen a’s mo t io n to reco nside r, const itute clear abu ses of discretion. According to He lena , the p lea in intervention must
e it h er be (1) v oid, o r ( 2) dee me d f iled as of the da te th e stay w as com plete ly and f inally li fted. The P erez es ass ert that thei r pl ea is not v oid bec ause they w ere notpar

ti es to t he
s u ito n Ma rc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , t h e d a t e t h e su p re m e co u rtim p o s e d t h e st a y. Tex as Rul e of C iv il Procedu re 60 prov ide s that “[ a]ny par ty may i nter v ene by fil ing
a ple adi ng subj ect to bei ng str ic ken out b y the cour t for suffici ent c ause on th e moti on of any party.” T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 60; In re Uni on C ar bide C or p. , 273 S.W .3d 1 52, 1 54 ( Tex . 200 8) (orig

. proce edin g)

. T he rule auth oriz es a pa rty w ith a justiciab le interestin a pen ding suit to inte rv ene in the s uitas a matter of ri g ht. In r

e U nio n C ar bide C or p. , 273 S.W .3d a t 154 (ci ti n g Guar

. F ed. S av. Bank

v. Horseshoe O

per ati ng C o. , 7 9 3 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 7 (T e x. 199 0)). How ev er , t he Perez es’ pl ea w as filed w hil e the tri al cour t proceed ing s w ere s tay ed by the supreme co urt’ s o rd er
. Hel ena c it es sev eral cas es in w hic h cour ts hav e hel d tha t
a ple adi ng or moti on filed dur ing the pendency of a sta y cons ti tutes a v iol ati on of thatst ay and i s v oid

. See City of Houston v. Swin erton Builders, In c. , 2 3 3 S

. W

. 3 d 4 , 8 -9 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 stDist .] 20 0 7 , n o pe t. ) (co n st ru in g T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §T he Per ez es not e c orr ect l y t hat H el ena poi nt s t o no di r ect aut hor i t y speci f i cal l y hol di ng t hat an 3 i nterven i ng p art y c an no t joi n a l aw s ui t i n w hi c h a s t ay ha s be en i m po s ed

. H ow eve r, t he T ex as S up rem e C ou rt has consi der ed t hi s i ssue at l east once i n di ct a. I n Ter r az as v. R am irez , 829 S. W

. 2d 7 12 ( T ex. 199 1) ( or i g. pr oceedi ng ), th e sup r em e cou r t consi der ed whet hert he t r i al cour t abu sed i t s di scr et i on i n ap pr ov i ng a set t l em ent agr eem ent r egar di ng l egi sl at i v e r edi st r i ct i ng. Aft er f i ndi ng t hat t he t r i al cour t ’ s jud gm ent was i m pr oper , t he Cour t di scussed whet hert he r el at or s, t wo r egi st er ed v ot ers tha t wer e no t par t i es t o t he u n d e r lyi n g p ro c e e d i n g , w e re e n ti tl e d to m a n d a m u s re l i e f. I d. a t 7 2 3

- 2 6

. I n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e y wer e so ent i t l ed, a t hr ee-j ust i ce pl ur al i t y not ed i nci dent al l y t hat “ [ r ] el at or s had no r easona bl e op por t uni t y t o i nt er v ene i n” t he u nder l y i ng ca se an d t hat “ [ o] fcour se, r el at or s coul d no t i nt er v ene at [ t he t i m e t he se t t l em ent agr eem ent w as reac he d] be c au s e o f ou r st ay
. ” I d. at 724

. H el ena poi nt s t o t hi s passa ge a nd su ggest s t hat t he Per ez es s i m i l a rly“c o u l d n o t i n te rv e n e ” d u rin g th e p e n d e n c y o f a s ta y
. See id. T he Per ez es, on t he o t herhan d, poi nt t o Just i ce M auz y ’ s di ssent i ng o pi ni on i n Ter r az as whi ch sug gest s t he o pposi t e: T he st ay i ssued by t hi s cour t woul d no t hav e pr ev ent ed t he f i l i ng ofa m ot i on t o i nt er v ene by R el at or s, who wer e no t par t i es at t he t i m e t he st ay was i ssued norcov er ed b y i t s expr ess t erm s
. M ore ove r, t he re i s no reas on the y c ou l d no t , a s d i d t he S t ate, pe t i t i on t hi s co urt t o l i ft t he st ay t o al l ow consi der at i on o fsuch a m ot i on. 6 51.014( b) ( Ver non 2008) ) (p arty filed amended peti ti on dur ing pendency of au tomati c s tay impos ed by

st atute due to fil ing of in te rloc utor y appeal ); Or

yx C apital Int ’ l, Inc . v . Sa ge Apar tmen ts , L.L.C ., 167 S. W .3d 4 32, 4 38 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2005, no p et.) ( par ty filed notic e of

non-s uitw hil e stay

imposed by

appell ate c our

t w as pendi ng ); In r

e M ar ti nez , 77 S. W .3d 4 62, 4 64 ( Tex . Ap p.–C orpus Chr is ti 2002, or ig . proceed ing ) (s ame); In re Conso l. Freightways , 75 S. W .3 d 14 7 , 1 4 9 (T e x. Ap p .– Sa n An to n io 20 0 2 , o rig. pro ce e d in g) (p arty fil ed moti on to enforce ag re ement duri ng penden cy of sta y auto mati cal ly

i mposed by i nsurance code due t o oth er par ty ’s i nsurer

bei ng dec lared “ impai re d” ); Pai ne v . Se aley, 956 S.W .2d 803, 806 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1997, no p et.) ( par ty se rv ed req uest s for admi ss ion s w hil e aut omati c b ankr uptcy st ay w as in effect ); Bur

rh us v. M & S Ma ch. & Supply Co., Inc. , 897 S.W .2d 8 71, 8 73 ( Tex . App.–San Antoni o 1995, no p et.) ( hol din g that app ellate dea dlines are stayed during pend ency of auto ma tic stay imp osed byinsurance code) ; see a lso Harrell v. Nation sBan k of Tex. , N o. 07 -0 0- 0179- CV , 200 0 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 5038, at * 3 ( Tex

. Ap p .–Am a ri ll o J uly 27, 2000, no pet .) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) (notin g tha t party i nte rv ene d an d mo v ed to lift a co urt-imp osed stay)

. Al l o f t hese cas es, how ev er , i nv olv e pl eadi ng s fil ed by i ndi v idu als or

enti ti es that
w ere al re ady

par ti es to t he s uitat the t ime the s tay w as impos ed. The q uest ion of w hether an i nter v enor i s s ubj ectto a s tay

i mposed before the i nter v enor bec ame a pa rty

to the s uit , on th e oth er

hand, i s a matte r of f irst impress ion for t his Co u rt

. Stil l, w e ag re e w it h the 3I d. at 74 3 (M au z y , J., di s s en t i ng ). I n a ny eve nt, w e d o n ot c on s i de r Ter r az as per suasi v e i n ei t he r d i r ect i on because ( 1) t he co m m ent s m ade on t he a v ai l abi l i t y of i nt er v ent i on d ur i ng a cour t

- i m posed st ay wer e di ct a, a n d (2 ) n e i th e r c o m m e n t w a s e n d o rs e d b y a m a jo rit y o f th e C o u rt.

H el ena asser t s t hat , beca use t he su pr em e cou r t ’ s st ay or derwas i n t he t r i al cour t ’ s r ecor ds, t he 4 Per ez es ha d con st r uct i v e knowl edge oft he st ay — and an i r r ebut t abl e pr esum pt i on a r ose t hat t he Per ez es ha d a c tu a l k n o w l e d g e th e re o f— p rio r to in te r v e n in g
. S ee Trou s da l e v
. H en ry , 261 S. W

. 3d 2 21, 236 n. 6 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 14t h Di st

. ] 200 8, pet

. f i l ed)

. However , t he d oct ri ne o f c on s t r uct i v e no t i ce ha s l i m i t ed appl i cat i on, and when t he r at i onal e be hi nd a ppl i cat i on o ft he d oct r i ne d oes n ot exi st , publ i c r ecor ds wi l l not b e h e l d to c re a te a n irre b u tta b l e p re s u m p ti o n o f a c tu a l n o ti c e
. Salinas v. G ar y Pools, I nc. , 31 S. W

. 3d 3 33, 336- 37 (T ex
. A pp
. –San Ant oni o 20 00, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng H EC IExpl or ation Co. v. N eel , 982 S. W

. 2d 8 81, 887 (T ex
. 19 98 ))

.

I n Tro u s d a le , t he Four t eent h Di st r i ct C our t of Appeal s consi der ed whet hert he l i m i t at i ons p er i od f or a l egal m al pr act i ce sui t was t ol l ed u ndert he d i scov er y r ul e when t he d ef end an t w as accu sed o ff r audul ent c o n c e a lm e n t. 2 6 1 S .W .3 d a t 2 3 4

. T h e c o u r t h e ld t h a t th e lim ita tio n s p e r io d w a s n o t t o lle d , a n d p la in tiff ’s s u it was t her ef or e bar r ed, because t he pl ai nt i ff had const r uct i v e k nowl edge of t he d i sm i ssal of herpr obat e act i on. See id. at 235 (n ot i ng t hat “t he est oppel eff ect offr audul ent conceal m ent ends w hen a par t y l ear ns off act s, c o n d itio n s , o r c i r c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h w o u ld c a u s e a r e a s o n a b ly p r u d e n t p e r s o n to m a k e in q u ir y, w h ic h , if pur sued, w oul d l ead t o di scov er y oft he co nceal ed ca use o fact i on” )

. T he r at i onal e be hi nd t he a ppl i cat i on o f t he co nst r uct i v e no t i ce do ct r i ne i n t hi s case was t o pr ecl ude st al e act i ons t hat woul d ot her wi se be bar r ed b y l i m i t at i ons. H el ena does not expl ai n ho w t hi s r at i onal e i s app l i cabl e i n t he i nst ant case; t hus, we do not c o n s i d e r th e P e re ze s to h a v e h a d c o n s tru c ti v e k n o w l e d g e o f th e s u p re m e c o u rt’ s s ta y
. See Salinas , 31 S. W

. 3d a t 336

- 37. 7 g ene ra l r u l e t h a t a p l e a d i n g fi l e d d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f a c o u rt

- i mp o s e d s t a y mu s t be
cons ide re d i neffect iv e for as lon g as the sta y is in effect , reg ardle ss of w hether the enti ty f iling t h e plea ding w as a pa rty to the suit at the time th e stay comm ence d. T hatis p a rt ic u la rl y t h e c a s e h e re , wh e re t h e s t a y im p o s e d b y t h e s u p re m e co u rta p p li e d b y it s o wn ter ms t o the under ly ing ca se it sel f, and notto any parti cul ar

party or par ti es. Cf

. 11 U.S.C. § 362 (p ro v idi ng g enerall y for a n aut omati c s tay

i n c ases i nv olv ing a pa rt ic ula r par ty ; i .e., a ba nkrup tcy deb tor or estat e). Nevertheless, in th e prese nt circumsta nces, a declara tion th at th e Pere z es’ plea in i nt er v en ti on i s e nt i rel y

v oi d an d of n o effect w ou l d be unj us t. P ar ti es t o th e s ui t att he t i me the sta y is impos ed are noti fied of the sta y ; any acti ons subs eq uentl y

made by su ch par ti es in the t ri al cour

t are ri g htfull y cons ide re d v iol ati ons of t he s tay and are v oid as a matter of law

. But a party atte mp ting to i nte rv ene during the pen den cy of a stay shou ld notbe he ld to the s a me s t a n d a rd a s a p a rt y t h a ti s a l re a d y

p a rto f t h e s u i t , b e c a u s e t h e i n terv enor does not recei v e formal noti ce of the s tay

. A ple a i n i nter v e n ti o n m a de by

an e nti ty

or 4 ind iv idu al that w as not a par ty to the sui t at the ti me the sta y w as impos ed oug ht no t t o beT he Per ez es asse r t t hat “ t he t r i al c ou rt c an no t have abu sed i t s di scr et i on i n r ul i ng o n an i ssue o f 5 f i r st [ ] i m pr essi on. ” However , i t i s wel l

- est abl i shed t hata t r i al cour t has no d i scr et i on i n de t er m i ni ng what t he l a w i s , e v e n w h e n th e l a w i s u n s e ttl e d

. I n re Bexar C ount y C r im inal D ist

. At t or

ney’ s O f f i ce , 224 S. W

. 3d 1 82, 1 8 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 7 ) (o rig . p ro c e e d i n g ); H u i e v . D e S h a zo , 92 2 S

. W

. 2d 92 0, 92 8 (T ex
. 19 96 ).

Because we f i nd t hat t he pl ea i n i nt er v ent i on m ust be st r uck as agai nst H el ena, we ne ed n ot add r ess 6 H e le n a ’s a d d itio n a l c la im th a t th e d o c tr in e o f la c h e s p r o h ib its th e P e r e z e s ’ in te r v e n tio n in th e u n d e r lyin g s u it b e c a u s e i t o c c u rr e d o v e r s i x y e a rs a fte r th e s u i t w a s i n i ti a te d

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47. 1. 8 consid ered ent irely v oid, but rath er mu st be con sidered ef fective as of

the da te th e stay is
ev entual ly

l ifted. See In r

e C o nsol. Freigh tw

ays , 75 S. W .3d at 153 (ordering that all ple adi ng s “ not direct ly re lat ed to the a ppl ic abi li ty of the [ ins urance code] st ay ” be deemed filed on the day after the s tay ex pires) ; Gou ld v. Sea Link Helicopte rs, Inc. , 982 S.W .2d 2 9, 31 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 8, no pet.) ( cons ide ri ng notic e of appeal fil ed dur ing ins urance code sta y

to be fil ed on the d ate t he s tay i s l ifted) ; see als o T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8.2 (“A docum entf iled by a party w hile the procee ding is su spen ded [due to aut om atic bankr uptcy

st ay] w ill b e d eemed fil ed on the s ame day , butafter , t he c our t rein sta tes or
sev ers t he appe al and w il l not b e c onsi dered i neffect iv e bec ause itw as filed w hil e the proce edin g w as susp end ed. ”). W e the re fore c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt a b u se d i ts dis creti on by deny ing ( 1) Hel ena’ s mot ion to str ik e the Perez es’ pl ea i n i n te rven tion and (2 ) Hel ena’ s mot ion to
re cons ide r. Ins tead, the ple a i n i nter v enti on bec ame effect iv e on June 15, 2 007, the d ate 5 the s upreme co urt l ifted i ts sta y of the proceed ing s in tr ial cour t caus e number

C -4 885- 99- F. Be caus e final j udg ments had already been entered on September 22, 2006 ap prov ing the s ettl ements betw een Hel ena and the or ig ina l pla int iffs, the ple a i n i nter v enti on mus t be str uck as ag ain st Hel ena. See Fi rs t Al ief Bank v. White , 682 S.W .2d 2 51, 2 52 ( Tex . 198 4) (o ri g . proceed ing ) (“ [A] ple a i n i nter v enti on c omes t oo l ate if fil ed after j udg ment and may
n o t be co n sid e re d un ti l th e ju d gm e n t h a s b e e n se t a sid e .” ) (ci ti n g Com al Co unty R ur al Hi gh Sch. Di st. No. 70 5 v

. Nels on , 158 T ex . 564, 314 S.W .2d 9 56 ( 1958) ). The P erez es’ pl ea 6 in intervention rema ins in ef fect w ith respe ct to the rema ining, non -settling defend ant s. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e condi ti onal ly g ra nt the peti ti on for w ri t of manda mus, and order the tr ial cour t t o9

g ra nt Hel ena’ s moti on to str ik e by : (1 ) cons ide ri ng the Perez es’ ple a i n i nter v enti on to be effect iv e as of June 15, 2 007; and (2) str ik ing the ple a in inter v enti on as to Hel ena. The
w ri t w il l is sue onl y

if the tr ial courtfail s to comply

. Fur ther , t he emerg ency

st ay i mposed by thi s C our

t’ s o rd er of Janua ry

23, 2009 i s h ereby

l ifted.

_________

_________

_______ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 31s t day

of Ma rc h, 20 09.