### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00 227 -CV
In re Rhyan Technology S ervic es, L.L.C. and E. Will iam Rhyan

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS COUNTY
M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Re lato r s Rhy an T e c h n o lo g y Se r v ic e s , L
. L
. C. ( “ RT S” ) an d E
. Wi ll iam Rhy an (“ Rhyan” ) f

ile d th is p e tit ion

fo r w ri t of

mand a mus re qu e sti ngthat w e or der th e dis tr ic t c ourt to
vacate its order disqualify ing E dwar d P. Watt and the Watt L aw Firm from re prese nting them, e ither individually

or toge ther, in this case . The pa rties cor rec tly desig nated the district c ourt judg e who signe d the disqualification orde r, the Honor able Scott Ozmun, as the responde nt. Se e In re Sc hm itz , No. 07-058 1 , 2009 Tex. L EXI S 304, at *3-4 (Te x . May 22, 2009) (“ The prope r re spondent in a mandamus ac tion is ‘the person ag ainst wh o m re l i ef i s soug ht.’” (quotingTex. R. App. P . 52.2)). “F or judicial orde rs, that shou l d gen era lly be the judg e who made the ruling ,” who may not
nece ssarily

be the pr esiding judge of the c ourt in which the c ase w as filed. Id. at *4. We note s ua spont e, however, that J udg e Oz mun is now dece ased. See I n re Baylor Me d. Ctr

. , 280 S.W .3d 227, 229 n.6 (Tex. 2008) (no ting that whe re r espondent trial judg e is no longe r in offic e, cour

t shall address suc h issue even if parties have not). We must theref ore de cide wh e the r t he se c ir c ums tanc e s r e qu ir e us to abat e the mand a mus pr oc e e din g in a c c or da nc e wi th rule 7.2 of the rules of a

ppellate pr ocedur e.T h e s u p re m e court did not apply the abatement rule in In re Sc hm itz , h ow e ve r, be c a us e 1 althoug h the presiding judge had left office and been r eplac ed, the c halleng ed orde r had in fa ct bee n signe d by a judg e who r emained in of fice
. See 2009 Tex. L EXI S 304, at *2-3.

2 Rul e 7. 2 p ro vid e s: (a) Automatic Substit ution of Offic er. When a public office r is a party in an offic ial capa city to an appe al or orig inal proce eding , and if that person c ease s to hold office befor e the a

ppeal or orig inal proce eding is finally disposed of, the public off icer ’s succe ssor is automatically substitut ed as a

party if appropr iate. . . . (b ) A bate me nt. I f t

he c a se is a

n o ri g ina l pr oc e e din g un de r R ule 52 , th e c ourt

mus t abate th e p r o c e e d in g to a ll o w th e s u c c e s s o r to r e c o n s id e r

th e o r ig in a l p arty ’s decision.
See Te x. R. A

pp . P. 7. 2. As the Tex as Sup re me Cou rt ha s a c kn ow le dg e d, “ it i s n e ve r e nti re ly pr e dic ta ble wh o wi ll pr e sid e ov e r a c a se wh e n it re tur ns to a tr ia l c ourt ,” pa

rt ic ula rl y in c ounti e s w ith
a ce ntral docke t, like Travis County
. Se e Sc hm itz , 2009 Tex. L EXI S 304, at *5. Fur thermore , “the
re sp on de nt i s n ot c ri tic a l in mand a mus pr oc e e din g s, a s o nly the re a l par ty in i nte re st a c tua lly

a pp e ars , argue s, and

is a ff e c te d by the ou tc ome . . . . Of c ours e , the wr it must be dir e c te d to so me on e , b ut i n the final a naly sis any

judge sitti ng in the case afte r m andamus relief is g rante d would be compe lled to obey it.” Id. at * 6
. Ne v er t h el es s , t h e sup re m e co u rt , h av i n g en d o rs ed t h e p o s i t i o nt h at t h e j u d ge wh o ac tu al l y

s i gn edt h e o rd er

co mp l ai n edo f i s t h e p ro p er re s p o n d en ti na m an d am u s p ro ce ed i n g, has consistently

applied the abate ment rule in c ases when the judg e who sig ned the or der ha s since left off ice. See B aylor Medic al , 280 S.W. 3d a t 22 8; In re Prude ntial Ins. Co. , 148 S.W .3d 124, 129 (Tex. 2004). 13 Acc ording ly , we will also apply rule 7.2 in this ca se. We there fore abate this original proce eding and dire ct the par ties to bring the motion to di squalify counsel to the attention of the trial court. In the eve nt that the Travis County district cou rt j u d ge who hears the matter ag ain orde rs
re l at o rs ’ c o u n s el t o b e d i s qu al i fi edo r o t h erwi s e c o n fi rm s t h e o rd er p re v i o u s l y

en t er ed , t h at j u d ge shall be substituted as responde nt in this proce eding
. The pa rties ar e re quested to file a status report with this C ourt on or bef

ore Septe mber 16, 2009. See Tex. R. App. P . 7.2(a) , (b).

J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Filed: August 5, 2009