T h e re sp o n d e n t i s the H o n o ra b le D a n M o o re , J u d g e o f th e 1 7 3 rd J u d ic ia l D istric t C o u rt, H e n d e rs o n C o u n ty, 1 T ex as. R esp o nd en t ha s f i l ed a resp o nse i n sup p o rt o f his o rd er, an d t he rea l p arti es in i ntere st ha ve ad o p t ed t ha t resp o nse as t hei r po si t i o n i n t hi s p roce ed i ng. 

## NO. 12-08-00494-CV

IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

§ IN RE: EN ERG Y T RAN SFER FUEL, L.P., § ORIGINAL PROCEE DING RELATOR § OPINION In this original mandamus proce eding , Relator, Energy Transf er Fuel, L P (ETF ), complains of Respondent’s N ovember 17, 2008 order

denying its motion to r econside r his rulingdenying the
re le a se of a $2 5, 00 0 c a shbo nd

po ste d b y ET F

. Th e bo nd

wa s post e d a ft e r E TF ob ta ine d a n e x part e 1 temporar y restra ining or der a g ainst the rea l parties i ninterest, F red H ead a nd Marsha

Hea d. ETF reque sts that this court dire ct Resp o n d en t to vacate his order de nying E TF’ s motion t o rec onsider and issue an or der gra n t i n g the motion. In an abunda nce of caution, ETF filed a notice of appe al followingthe dismissal of the underlying pr ocee ding. We de ny ETF’ s petition.

B ACKG ROUND ETF is a public g as utility

and has the right of eminent domain. It a lso has the right to enter upon proper

ty to make preliminary survey s of propose d routes alongwhich its g as pipelines may be
c on str uc te d. ET F re qu e ste d pe rm iss ion to e nte r t he He a ds ’ p ro pe rt

y to c on du c t surv e yinga c tiv iti e s, but was re fused e ntry . There afte r, on J uly 23, 2008, ETF f

iled a petition reque sting a temporar y
re str a ini ngor de r ( TRO ) a s w e ll a s te mpo ra ry and pe rm ane nt i nju

nc tio ns a g a ins t th e He a ds

. Respondent grante d a TRO prohibiting the Hea ds from interfe ringor attemptingto interfer e wi th E TF ’s ri ght t o e nte r a nd surv e y the ro ute of it s pi peli ne a c ro ss t he He a ds ’ p ro pe rt

y . A s a2

condition of grantingthe TRO, Respondent orde red ET F to post a $2 5 , 000 bond. ETF deposited $25,000 cash in lieu of a bond, and a he aringwas set f or Jul y 31, 2008 on ETF’ s reque st for a temporar y injunction. Accor ding to the or der, the purpose of the hea ringwas “ to de termine whe ther this temporary

restraining or der should be ma de a te mporary injunction pending a

full trial on the merits.” Af te r o bta ini ngthe TRO , E TF imm e diat ely beg an it s su rv e yinga c tiv iti e s o n th e He a ds ’ proper ty and complete d its work on J uly 29, 2008. Subsequently , the followingevents oc curr ed:

• Jul

y 29, 2008 E T F f i l ed a no t i ce o f no nsui t , a n d se n t t he H ead s no t i ce o f t he f i l i ng.

• Jul

y 31, 2008 E T F fi l ed a m o t i on r eques t i ng t he r el eas e of i t s $2 5 ,00 0 ca sh b o n d

.

• Augus t

11, 2008 R e sp o n d e n t d e n ie d E T F ’s m o tio n re q u e s ti n g th e r e le a se o f its

ca s h bon d.

• Augus t

28, 2008 E T F fi le d a m o tio n re q u e sting R e sp o n d e n t to re c o n sid e r h is

re fus a l t o re le a se the b o n d

.

• Se

pt em ber4, 2008 Coun s el f or t h e par t i es appe ar ed f or a h ea r i n g on ET F’ s mot i on to re c o n sid e r. T h e H e a d s’ c o u n se l re q u e ste d a d d iti o n a l t im e to pr epa r e, a n d t h e h ea r i n g w as r es et f or Se pt embe r 10, 2008.

• Se

pt em ber10, 2008 R espo nd ent co nd uct ed a heari ng o n E T F’s m o t i o n t o reconsi d er. E T F’ s coun s el pre s ent ed oral ar gu ment , an d R es po ndent r ul ed f r om t h e ben ch t h at ET F’ s mot i on t o r ec on s i der w as de n i ed.

• Nove m ber17, 2008 R es po ndent s i gn ed an order deny i ng E T F’ s mo t i on t o r econs i der h i s r ef u s al t o r el ea s e t h e bon d.

• Febr uar

y 3, 2009 R espo nd ent s i gned an o rder d i smi ss i ng “ [t he] cause” b ut m aki ng

n o p ro v isio n fo r th e re le a se o f t h e b o n d

.

• Febr uar

y 4, 2009 R espo nd ent f i l ed a cert i f

i ed co p y o f hi s d i smi ss al o rd e r in this cou r t

. H e ex pl ai n ed t h at h e di s mi s s ed t h e ca s e bec au s e t he q u e stio n in this p ro c e e d ing is “w h e the r the re is a m iniste ria l d u ty t o rel ease R el at o r’ s b o nd whi l e R el at o r i s st i l l l i ab l e o n same , and n o t wh e the r R e la to r is e n tit le d to tak e a no n -su it[.] . . .”

• M ar ch 3, 2009 E T F f i l ed a noti ce o f

ap p eal f rom t he d i smi ss al ord er.W h e n , as he re , a c a se ter m ina te s w it h o u t a tra d iti o n a l t ria l o n the m e rits b e c a u se the p la intiff no n su ited it s 2
c la im s, n o p re su m p tio n a rise s re g a rd ing th e fin a lit y o f t h e ju d g m e n t. See Cr i t es v . Colli ns , 2 8 4 S.W

. 3 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 0 (T ex. 2 0 0 9 ); Lehm ann v . H ar - Con Cor p. , 3 9 S .W .3 d 1 9 1 , 2 0 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 1 ). T h u s, a d ism issa l o rd e r fo llo w ing a no n su it is no t f i nal f o r purpo ses of ap p eal unl ess i t act ual l y dis p o se s o f e v ery pe nd i ng cl ai m and pa rt y or unl ess i t cl earl y and u n e q u ivo c a lly sta te s tha t i t f ina lly d isp o se s o f all cla im s a n d a ll p a rtie s. See C r i t es , 2 8 4 S .W .3 d a t 8 4 0 -4 1 ; Lehm ann , 3 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 0 5 . P le a d ing s, no t m o tio n s, d e te rm ine the issu e s a n d p a ra m e te rs o f a c o n te st. See Jobe v. Lapi dus , 874 S.W

. 2 d 76 4 , 76 5

- 6 6 (T ex. A p p . – D al l as 19 9 4 , wri t de ni ed ). I n t hi s case , th e d ism issal ord er do es not i ncl ud e any l ang uag e of

f i nal i t y . W e n ot e, howev er , t hat E T F’ s cont i nu i ng as s er t i on t hat i t i s en t i t l ed t o t he r el eas e of i t s bond ari s es fro m the d e n ia l o f a m o tio n . T h e re fo re , i t i s n o t a n un re so lve d “c la im ” tha t re n d e rs the d ism issa l o rd e r in te rlo c u to ry. See Lehm ann , 3 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 0 5 ; s ee al s o Jobe , 87 4 S.W

. 2 d at 76 6 (t ri al co urt ’ s f ai l ure t o rul e o n m o t i o n has no be ari ng o n f i nal i t y of judgm ent ). 3 ETF f iled its petiti on for writ of mandamus in this court prior to the F ebruary 3, 2009 dis mis sa l or de r, re qu e sti ngan orde r d ir e c tin gRe sp on de nt t o ( 1) se t a sid e the or de r d e nyingits motion to reconsider, ( 2) re lease ETF’ s bond, and (3) issue an orde r of nonsuit

. The dism issal order has re ndere d moot the relief r equeste d by ETF e x cept the or der dire ctingRespondent to rele ase the bond.

P RE RE QUI S I T E S T O M ANDAMUS A writ of m an d am u s will issue to correc t a clea r abuse of discre tion when there is no adequate reme dy by

appea l. I n reP r u d en t ia l I n s. C o . o f A m. , 148 S.W .3d 124, 135-36 (Tex . 2004); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W .2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). A trial cour t abuses its discretion if it rea ches
a de c isi on so arb itr ary

and unre a so na

ble a s to amou

nt t o a c le ar a nd pr e jud ic ia l e rr or

of law o r i f i t clea rly fails to corr ectly

analy ze or apply

the law. Walker , 827 S.W .2d at 839-40. The relator has t h e burde n to establish the prer equisites to mandamus. Cana dia n Helic op te rs L td. v . W itt ig , 876 S.W .2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994). This burden is a he avy one. Id

. A D EQ U A C Y O F A PP ELLATE RE M E DY We initi ally

consider whether

ETF has an a dequate reme dy by appea l. An appellate reme dy i s “a d eq u ate” when a

ny benef its to m andamus re view ar e outweighed by the detriments. In re Prudential , 148 S.W .3d at 136. This deter mination de pends heavily on the circ umstances pr esente d and is better guided by

g ener al principles than by simple rules. Id. at 137. ETF states, and we agree , that the di smissal order is a f inal judgme nt. But ETF urg es that

24

Respondent’s orde r deny

ing E TF’ s motion to rec onsider is a void order. T hus, ETF c ontends that
we ne ed not a ddress whether it ha s an ade quate r emedy by appea l. See In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co. , 35 S.W .3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000). A ju d g me nt o r

o r d e r is v o id o n ly wh e nit is a p p ar e nt t h at t h e c o urt r e n d e r in git

h a d no jurisdiction of the parties, no jurisdiction of the subjec t matter, no jurisdiction to enter the judgment or orde r, or no c apac ity

to act as a

court. Ma

pc o, Inc . v . Fo rre st , 795 S.W .2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990) (j ud g me nt) ; see I

n re U . S. Si lica Co. , 157 S.W .3d 434, 438-39 (Te x . 2005) (a cknowledg ing that Mapco applies to order s, but decliningto decide whether order i n question was within the “r are circ umstances” that rende r an or der void rather than me rely voidable). “ Absent one of those rar e circ umstances that make s the [order] void, the mere f act that a n action by

a cour t [ ] i s contrar

y to a statute, constitutional provision or rule of c ivil or appellate pr ocedur e make s it ‘voidable’ or
err oneous.” Mapco , 795 S.W .2d at 703. In the ca se at ha

nd, ETF doe s not show that any of the “ rar e cir cumstance s” re n d er i n gan order void a

re prese nt. See Mapco , 795 S.W .2d at 703. Instead, ETF asser ts that Respondent’s order denying its motion to reconsider is contrar y to law. Even if this is corr ect, howe ver, the order is not void absent one of the “ rar e cir cumstance s” identified in Mapco

. See Mapco , 795 S.W .2d at 703. ET F a lso state s th at it “ be lie ve s th e ava ila

bil ity of an a pp e llate re me dy at lawis q ue sti on a ble beca u s e th e tria l c o urt e xe c ute d ano r d e r o f d is mi s s a l i nit s f

av o r . ” A s a

uth o r it y f o r th is p osition, E T F c i t es ca s es re co gn i z i n g th e ge n er al ru l e th at o n e w h o t ak es a v o l unt ary n o n s u i tcann o tch al l en ge the order on appea l. See, e .g., Boyd v . Ki mbel l , 2 1 T e x. Civ . App . 6 , 7 , 5 0 S. W. 6 34 , 6 35 (1 89 9, writ de nie d) ; Hust

on v . Berry , 3 Te x. 23 5, 23 6 ( 18 48 ). We agre e wi th ET F ’s a sse ssm e nt o f t he dif fi c ult y i tw o u l d e n c o unt e r

i nc h a l l e n g i n gth e d i s m i s s a l o r d e r h e r e . H o w e v e r , n o s u c h c h a l l e n g e i s n e c e s s ar y. ETF c omplains of the order denying its motion to r econside r. This or der was interloc utory when it wa s signe d beca

use it did not dispose of all parties and claims. See Crites , 284 S.W .3d at 84 0-4 1; Lehmann , 39 S.W .3d at 205. Subject to cer tain “mostly

statutory exceptions” not applicable in this case , an appea l ma y be taken only from a f

inal judgme nt. Lehmann , 39 S.W .3d
at 19 5. Con se qu e ntl y , th e or de r d e nyingET F ’s mot ion to r e c on sid e r w a s n ot a

pp e a la ble until5

Respondent sig ned the dismissal order . The interloc utory ord e r th en mer g ed into the dismissal order, a fina l judgment, a

nd beca me final for

purposes of a

ppeal. See Webb v

. J or ns , 488 S.W .2d 407, 408-09 (Te x . 1973). In other wor ds, the order denying E TF’ s motion t o rec onsider is now appea lable. See Douglas v. Am . Title Co. , 196 S.W .3d 876, 879 n.6 (Tex. App.–Houston [1s t Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Moreove r, ETF c an appe al the orde r without challeng ing the dismiss al. See Russ e ll v. McBride Elec., Inc. , No. 05-05-00507- CV, 2006 WL 664015, at *1 (Te x . App.–Dallas 2006, no pet.) (me m. op.) (appe llant challeng ed sanc tions order that wa s merg ed into final judg ment and beca me final for

purposes of a

ppeal, but did not challeng e fina l judgment)

. Finally , we note that wh i l e mandamus re lief has oc casiona lly been grante d afte r final judgme nt, the circumstances in such cases were unusua l. See Geary v. Pe avy , 878 S.W .2d 602, 603 (Tex. 1994) (mandamus appropriate bec ause of “unique and compelling circ umstances” involving
c on fl ic tin gc hil d c us tod

y or de rs de sp ite the e ntr

y of a fi na l or de r) ; In reHome Sta te Coun ty Mut. Ins. C o. , No

. 1 2 -0 7 -0 0 0 6 2 -C V, 2 0 0 7 W L 1 4 2 9 5 8 4 , at * 3 -4 (T ex . Ap p . – T yl er M ay 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , o ri g. proce eding ) (mem. op.) (mandamus requiringtri al co u rt t o vacate seve ranc e orde r re ndere d final judgme nt interlocutory

). No similar unusual or c ompelling f acts a re pr esente d here

. ET F do e s n ot a

rgue that th e be ne fi ts o f m and amus outw e igh th e de tr ime nts un de r t he fa c ts be fo re us . I ns te a d, ET F c ite s In re Prudential g ener ally

and states, without elabor ation, that

“ Re sp on de nt’ s a c tio ns have a lr e a dy re su lte d in

a n ir re ve rs ibl e wa ste of

judici al and

pu bli c
resour ces.” See In re Prudential , 148 S.W .3d at 136-37. In the cited por tion of In re Prudential , the supreme court wa s ref erring to a situation in which “the trial court on its own motion and w ithout
any a uth or ity wh ate ve r, sp lit

tw o c a se s into s ixte en and tr ans ferr e d v e nu e of fo ur te e n o f t he m to other c ounties.” Id

. at1 3 6 (c i t i n g In reMa so nite Cor p . , 997 S.W .2d 194, 195-96 (Te x . 1999)). The court stated that, in that instance, it was not require d “to turn a blind eye to blatant injustice nor . . . be an a ccomplice to six teen tria ls that [ would] amount to littl e more than a fiction.” Id . Moreove r, the waste of judicial resour ces would have occur red beca use appea l w as not immediately available

. See id . The s i tu at ion here is not analog ous. Respondent’s ac tion does not reac h the level of the actions addr essed in In reMa so nite , and ETF ’s re medy by appea l is available now. There fore , there is n o b e ne fi t to the mand amu s rel ief so ught b y ET F . A c c or din g ly , w e ho ld t hat E TF ’s a

pp e llate
reme dy is adequate. See id

.6 C ONCL US I ON The orde r deny

ing E TF’ s motion t o rec o n s i d er i s not void, and can be appea led without chall en gi n g the dismissal order. ETF has not shown that its appellate r emedy is inadequate

. Ac c or din g ly , w e de ny

ET F ’s pe tit ion

fo r wri t of

mand amus .
JA M ES T. WOR THEN

Chief Justice
Opinion delivere d September 23, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(PUBLISH)