### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00496- CV
In re Texas Education Agency and Michael L. Williams, Com m ission er of Edu cation for the State of Texas

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

O P I N I O N
Relators Tex as Education Ag ency (TEA) and Mi chae l L

. Wil liams, Commi ssion er of Educa tion for St ate of Texas (collec tivel y , the C ommissi oner) , filed a petition for writ of m andamus alleg ing that the di strict court abused i ts discretion by issuing temporary restra ining orders enjoining the State Offic e of A dminist rative H ear ings ( SOAH) a nd two administrative law judg es (AL J s) from proce eding with a hear ing on the char ter re v o ca t ion of a char

ter school, Americ an Youthworks, I nc. We will conditionally

g rant the w rit.

BACK GR OUND This is th e second mandamus proce eding challeng ing a district court’s attempts to halt char ter-r evocation proce eding s ag ainst Youthworks, a nonprofit corpor ation that opera tes an openenrollment char

ter school under chapte r 12, subchapte r D of the Texas Educa tion Code. See In re Texas Educ. Agenc

y , No. 03-14-00420- CV, 2014 Tex. App. L EXI S 7822 (Tex. App.—Austin J uly 18, 2014, orig

. proce eding ); see also Tex. Educ. Cod e § § 1 2.101-.136. Youthworks was notified on Dec ember 18, 2013 of the Commi ssioner’s decision to revoke its ch ar t er ef fec tive J une 30, 2014 under section 12.115(c) , whi ch require s the Commi ssioner to revoke the char ter of any school that,for three consec utive y ear s, rec eives unacc eptable aca d em i c- p erf ormanc e rating s, unsatisfac tory “fina ncial acc ountability ” perf ormanc e rating s, or a combination of the two. See id. § 12.115(c) (1-3)

. Youthworks appea led the Commi ssioner’s revoc ation decision to SOAH, which has jurisdiction to revie w the Com m i s sioner’s decision to revoke a char ter. See id. § 12.116(c)

. Be fore the schedule d SOAH hea ri n g, Youthworks filed a decla ratory -judg ment suit ag ainst the Commi ssioner in Travis County district court seeking interpre tation of sections of the Educa tion Code that set forth the basis and proce dure for mandatory revoc ation of an open-e nrollment char ter school’s char

ter afte r the school fails to meet aca demic or financ ial acc ountability standards for three consec utive y ear s. See id

. §§ 12.115, 12.116. I n addition to the decla ratory judgme nt, Youthworks soug ht injunctive relief to stay the revoc ation proce eding s pending the outcome of its claims. The district court g rante d the injunctive relief Youthworks soug ht, and the Commi ssioner filed an acc eler ated appea l from that order

. Youthworks then soug h t and obtained an order deny ing the Commi ssioner’s superse deas of the temporar y injunction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b). The Commi ssioner petitioned for a writ of mandamus, and in acc ordanc e with this Court’s prior mandamus opinion, the district court

vacated its order. See I

n re Texas Educ . Agenc

y , 2014 Tex. App. L EXI S 7822. Whil e the suit ag ainst the Commi ssioner and the Commi ssioner’s first mandamus wer e pending , SOAH abate d the administrative case on the revoc ation of Youthworks’ char ter. SOAH lifted the abate ment of the char

ter-r evocation case ag ainst Youthworks afte r the district court vacated its order deny ing the Commi ssioner’s superse deas, and SOAH proce eded to set a hear ing for Aug ust 12, 2014.

The curr ent mandamus petition stems fr o m a new lawsuit, arising from what seem to be the same circ umstances, that Youthworks filed ag ainst SOAH and two AL J s (collec tively , SOAH) seeking a TRO to enjoin the August 12 hear ing. SOAH fil ed a response to Youthworks’ application

2for TRO raising sever al objections, including the lack of any cause of action pled ag ainst SOAH and the

absenc e of TEA as a nece ssary party to the suit. After a hear ing, the district court g rante d Youthworks’ TRO. The Commi ssioner then filed thi s petition for writ of mandamus. Whil e this Court was considering the mandamus pe tition, t he district cour t signe d an ame nded TRO.

DISCUSSIO N To obtain mandamus relief , rela tor must sho w that the trial court clea rly abused its discretion and that the rela tor has no adequate reme dy by appea l. In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., L .P., 226 S.W .3d 40 0 , 4 0 3 (T ex . 2007) (orig

. proce eding ) (citing In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W

. 3 d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig

. proce eding )). We conclude that the Commi ssioner has made that showing

.

The Commi ssioner’s mandamus petition arg u es that the district court abused its discretion by issuing both of the TROs in the absenc e of a nece ssary party , TEA. The Commi ssioner contends that the TROs direc tly aff ect TEA’s interests without making it a part y , there by impairing TEA’s ability to protec t its interest in resolving Youthworks’ administrative proce eding expeditious ly and preve nt Youthworks from “diver ting milli ons of taxpay er dollars to a failing school whose char ter is require d by law to be revoke d.” As SOAH pointed out below, the Commi ssioner’s order is the opera tive instrument at the char ter-r evocation hear ing, SOAH itself has no authority to order a char ter school closed or

rema in open. The rule on nece ssary parties is set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedur e 39(a) , which provides in re levant par

t: (a) Persons to Be J oined I f Fe asible. – A person who is subject to service of proce ss shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absenc e complete relief cannot be 3acc orded among those alread y parties, or (2) he claims an interest rela ting to the

subject of the action and is so situated that the dispositi on of the action in his absenc e may (i) as a prac tical matter impair or impede his ability to protec t that interest

. . . . I f he ha s not been so joined, the c ourt shall order that he be ma de a pa

rty
.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 39(a)

. This Court has conclude d that a petition seeking injunctive relief should name
as party defe ndants all those “ag ainst whom the injunct i o n m u s t run in order to make it eff ective and whose interests will be injuriously aff ecte d.” Texas L iquor Control Bd. v. Dine rs’ Club, Inc ., 347 S.W .2d 763, 767 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1961, writ ref ’d n.r.e.) ; see also Spe edman Oil Co.

v. Duval Cnty. Ranch Co. , 504 S.W .2d 923, 926-27 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1973, writ ref ’d n.r.e.) (“Per sons ag ainst whom no complaint of wrong doing is lodge d and ag ainst whom no injunctive relief is soug ht are not indispensable parties to a proce eding for temporar y injunction.”). We re cog nize that in other contexts—when maintenanc e of the status quo is preliminary to a d ec i s i o n o n t h e merits of the case and when a party ’s rig hts could be lost befor e
nece ssary parties can be located and joined—courts have held that a party seeking to p re s erve its rig hts need not join all nece ssary parties before o b t ai n i n g interim order s. Compare Litt lejohn

v. Finder , 3 4 8 S

. W

. 2d 237 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1961, no writ) (noting that temporar y order s being challeng ed did n o t s et t le any disputes betwee n parties or ultimate rig hts prese nted i n lawsuit) and W

inslow v. Duval Cnty. Ranch Co. , 519 S.W .2d 217, 226 (Tex. Civ. App.—B eaumont 1975, writ ref

’d n.r.e .) (noting that defe ndants had be en tempora rily enjoined for

two y ear s during which time plaintiff had presumab l y b een sear ching for nece ssary and proper parties who

wer e require d to be joined befor e final trial on merits) and Hyde v. R a y , No

. 02-03-00339- CV, 2004 Tex. App. L EXI S 5129, at * 8-9, *11 (Tex. App.—Fo rt W orth J une 10, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (re

jecting arg ument that temporar y injunction was improperly g rante d beca use of failure

4to join rema ining 184 proper ty owner s and members of proper ty owner s ’ a s s o c ia

ti o n a s in d is pensable parties; injunction wa s proper ly direc ted only to appellants who wer e befor e court and whose conduct was solely responsible fo r ap p el lees’ claimed injury ) with Scott v. Graham , 292 S.W .2d 324, 327 (Tex. 1956) (af firming trial court’s denial of injunctive re l ief wher e plaintiff failed to join nece ssary party

). Her e, however, delay of t he SOAH he aring is not preliminary to, but rathe r the merits of and the complete relief soug ht by , Youth wo rks’ suit. Fur ther, there is no viable arg ument that the TR Os should have proce eded without joi ning a nece ssary

party beca use of time lost in locating and joining TEA. Youthworks is alre ady involved in a lawsuit with TEA on the same underly ing c harte r-r evoca tion matters. 1 As such, i s s u an ce o f both TROs was an abuse of the district court’s discretion. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 683; In re Office of Attorney Gen. , 25 7 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 5, 697 (Tex. 2008) (orig

. proce eding ). Fur

ther, the Commi ssioner has no adequate appellate reme dy beca use TROs are g ener ally not a

ppeala ble. See In re Office of

Attorney Gen. , 257 S.W .3d at 697. We c onclude that the district court’s TROs enjoining Youthworks’ Aug ust 12, 2014 hear ing befor e SOAH without the joinder of a TEA—a known, rea dily locatable , a n d n e c essar

y party whose interests will be injuriously aff ecte d—was an ab u se of the district court’s discretion for which the Commi ssioner lacks an adequate re medy

by appea l. 2

I ndeed, the Commi ssioner arg ues persu as i v el y that this new lawsuit and TROs ag ainst 1 SOAH, which involves the same underly ing char ter-r evocation dispute as Youthworks’ suit ag ainst the Commi ssio n er , i s mere ly Youthworks’ attempt to circ umvent this Court’s previously issued mandamus. Be cause this issue is dispositi ve of the Commi ssioner’s petition for writ of mandamus, we 2 need not r eac h the alter

native base s prese nted in the petition. See Tex. R. App. P . 47.1.

5CONCLUSION We conditionally g rant the Commi ssioner’s petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(c) . The wr it will i ssue only if the district court f ails to vaca

te the under ly ing TROs in acc ordanc e with this opinion. The Commi ssioner’s emer g ency motion for temporar y relief is dismi ssed as moot.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Filed: Aug ust 11, 2014

6