### NUM BER 13-07- 598- 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 O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG

SEA LY R G VA LL EY B UIL DIN GS, L .P., A pp ellan t,
v . JA M ES T . GR IFF IN, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 1 07t h Dist rict C ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef o re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Appel lan t, Seal y

R G Va ll ey

Bui ldi ng s, L.P. ( “S eal y ”) , app eal s f ro m a judg ment t hat g ra nts appel lee , J ames T. Gr iffin’s ( “G ri ff in” ) moti on to di smi ss and, al ternati v ely , g ra ntsG r if f in u r g e s u s to f in d w a iv e r p u r s u a n t to T e x a s R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 3 8 .1 , b e c a u s e S e a ly’s 1 b r i e f d o e s n o t c o n ta in a n “ is s u e p r e s e n te d ” r e g a r d in g ju r is d ic tio n . S e a ly p o in ts o u t in its r e p ly b r ie f th a t it addr esses a l l i ssues i n hi s br i ef

. W e be l i ev e t hat hi s br i ef r ai ses an ar gum ent wi t h r egar d t o j ur i sdi ct i on a nd d e c l i n e to fi n d th a t S e a l y w a i v e d a n y a rg u m e n t w i th re g a rd to ju ris d i c ti o n
.

I t app ear s t o t hi s C our t t hat t he t r i al cour t had no j ur i sdi ct i on t o ent er t he or der cl ar i f y i ng t he j udgm ent 2 a s th e fi n a l ju d g m e n t w a s e n te re d o n S e p te m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d n o th i n g in th i s r e c o rd s h o w s th a t t h e a p p e l l a te ti m e ta b l e w a s e x te n d e d b y p o s t ju d g m e n t m o ti o n
. See T EX .R .C IV
. P. 329b. As such, t he t r i al cour t r et ai ned pl enar y power f or onl y t hi r t y day s. T he cl ar i f i cat i on or der was si gned N ov em ber 18, 200 4, af t er t he co ur t l ost p l e n a ry p o w e r o v e r th e ju d g m e n t. T h e re fo re , w e d o n o t c o n s i d e r th e c l a rifi c a ti o n o rd e r i n o u r d i s p o s i ti o n
. 2 his moti on f or

summary

j udg ment. By

thr ee i ss ues, Seal y

as sai ls the jud g ment of the tr ial
cour t, pr imar il y

att ack ing onl y that por

ti on of the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er thatal ter nati v ely

g ra nted Gr i ffin ’ s mo ti on for

s um ma r y j ud g me nt

. W e affi r m.

1 I

. B A CK GRO UND A. Und er ly ing Li ti g ati on Seal y or ig ina lly s u e d D NL W ar ehous e & Di str ibu ti on C enter ( “D NL” ) in Camer on Coun ty Co urt at La w

Numb er One, f or breach es of a lease (the “unde rly ing l itigation”). Grif f in, DNL’s presiden t, w as ne v er person ally nam ed in t h e un derlyi ng li tigation. Se aly obtai ned a jud g ment ag ain st DN L W ar ehous e & Di str ibu ti on C enter , al so know n as Di mples N ov a/Li nk, Inc ., d/b/a DN L W ar ehous e & Di str ibu ti on Center , on September 20, 2004. The j udg ment di d not menti on Gr iffin. On N ov ember 18, 2004, DN L fil ed a moti on for c lar ific ati on, w hic h the tr ial cour t g ra nted. In ess ence, the cl ar ific ati on or der sta ted t hat

2 Gr iffin w as not p er sonal ly l iab le. B. The Cu rr ent L it ig ati on On F ebr uar

y 10, 2006, Seal y

fil e d an ori g ina l peti ti on ag ain st Gr iffin i n the 107t h District C ourt in Cam eron Coun ty. In this litig ation , Sea ly sought a decla ration that Griff in
w as pe rsona lly

liable f or t he und erly ing jud gmen t gr ant ed a gainst DNL. Sealy sought th is
re li ef w hen p o st -ju d gment c oll ect ion eff orts faile d. Gr iffin too k t he pos it ion thatthe3

jud g ment w as not e nforce abl e ag ain st him. Sp eci fical ly , Se aly so ug ht a decl ar ati on th at it w as e n t i t l e d t o r e i n fo r c e i t s j u d g me n t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t D N L a g a i n s t G r i ffi n , D N L ’ s “k ey man.” G ri ff in filed a mot ion to dis mis s for l ack of su b ject matter

j ur is dic ti on and, altern atively , a mo tion f or sum ma ry judgmen t. Th e trial court granted both mot ions. II. A N A LY S IS W e f irst address th e trial court’s dismissa l order. Subje ct ma t t e r ju risdiction is a q uest ion of law

that w e r ev iew

de n ov o. Tex . D ept. of P ar ks and W ildli fe v . M ir anda , 133 S.W .3d 2 17, 2 26 ( Tex . 200 4) ; T ex
. N at ur

al R es
. C on s er

v at ion C om m ’

n v
. IT-Davy , 74 S.W .3d 849 , 855 (Te x
. 200 2). Th e plain tif f has the burde n to allege f acts th at af f irmatively demonst ra te that the tri al cour t has subj ectm atter

j ur is dic ti on. Tex. Ass’

n of Bu s. v. Tex. Air Con tr

ol Bd., 8 5 2 S

. W

. 2 d 4 4 0 , 4 4 6 ( Te x
. 1 9 9 3 )

. I f t h e p l e a d i n g s a ffi r ma t i v e lyneg ate jurisdi c t io n , t hen a plea to the jurisdiction may be gr ant ed a nd th e case is properly dis mis sed. C ou nt

y o f C am er

on v
. Br own , 80 S. W .3d 549 , 555 (Tex. 2002 ). Sea ly couch es its plead ing as a req uest f or declara tor y judgmen t. A declara tory jud g ment i s p ro per

onl y i f a jus ti ci abl e contr ov er sy ex is ts as to the r ig hts and sta tus of the par ti es and the contr ov er sy w il l be res olv ed by the decl ar ati on s oug ht. Bonha m Stat e Bank v. Bea dle , 907 S.W .2d 4 65, 4 67 ( Tex . 199 5)

. Dec lar ator y rel ie f i s n o t av ail abl e for the int er pr etati on of a pr ior jud g ment enter ed by that or any othe r cour

t. Rapid Se ttlements, Ltd. v. SSC

Set tl em ents , LLC , 25 1 S. W .3 d 1 2 9 , 14 0 (T e x. Ap p .– T yler 2 0 0 8 , ori g. pr oceed ing ); see Ma rt

in v. Dos ohs I, Ltd. , 2 S.W .3d 350 , 353 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 199 9, pe t. de nied ). Her e, S eal y ’s peti ti on for decl ar ator y j udg ment as ked the d is tr ic t c our t t o dec lar e,4

in eff ect , t he oppo si te of w hat the county

court ’s judg ment state d. There w as no appea l from the count y

co urt’ s j udg ment. The s upr eme co urt has hel d tha t a jud g ment s hal l not be r ender ed ag ain st one w ho is nei ther named nor

serv ed as a pa rt y
. KAO Holdin gs, L.P

. v. Young , N o. 07 -0 197, 2008 W L 24049 71, a t * 1 ( Tex . J une 13, 2008)

. Gr iffin w as not a party to the pre v ious jud gmen t. Fu rther, the Te x as Const itution g rants cou rts of app eals in thi s s tate ex cl usi v e jur is dic ti on ov er appeal s from final jud g ments of dis tr ic t and co unty courts. T EX
. C ON ST
. art. V, § 6. Di str ic t cour ts, how ev er hav e no appel lat e jur is dic ti on ov er
or der s e nter ed by

co unty co urts, unl ess ex pr ess ly auth or iz ed. T EX
. C ON ST . art. V, § 8; see, e.g., C hr is ti an v . H oweth , 522 S.W .2d 700 , 702 (Tex. App. –Ft. W orth 19 75, w rit r ef ’d n.r.e). Throug h a r eq uestfor d ecl ar ator y r eli ef, Se a ly s o ug ht r ev iew by the dis tr ic t c our

t of the count y co urt’ s e ar li er

j udg ment. The di str ic t c our t doe s n ot ha v e “ appel lat e” j ur is dic ti on to
c ha ng e or

a l te r a c ou nt y

c ou rt j ud g me nt

. R at he r , j ur i s di c ti on t o r ev i ew a j ud g me ntfr om a count y co urt i s w it h t h e c our

ts of appeal s. T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 51.012 (V er non 199 7)

. Beca use Seal y soug ht to obtai n re li ef fro m the dis tr ic t cour t that it had no jurisdiction to g rant, the trial court’s dism issal order w as prop er. III

. C ONCL US I ON W e co n c l u d e t h a t t h e t ri a l c o u rt p ro p e rl y d is m is s e d t h e ca s e a s it d id n o t h a ve jur is dic ti on t o r ev iew

a pr ior j udg ment of the count y co urt. W e ov er ru le Seal y ’s poi nts w it h
re g ar d to hi s jur is dic ti onal arg uments and do not addres s his iss ues as they r ela te t o the5

g ra nti ng of Gr iffin’s moti on for summar y jud g ment as they ar e not d is posi ti v e. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.1. The j udg ment of di smi ss al is aff ir med.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 6th d ay

of Aug ust , 200 8.