Court Opinion

ID: 2772250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-01-22 16:35:52.364075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:45:35.198230
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              _________________
                               NO. 09-15-00019-CV
                              _________________

 IN RE BARNETT & GARCIA, PLLC, LAWRENCE FALLI, AND TRI ED
                    DISTRIBUTION, INC.

________________________________________________________________________

                               Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Barnett & Garcia, PLLC, Lawrence Falli, and Tri Ed Distribution, Inc. filed

a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the judge of the County Court at

Law No. 1 of Jefferson County, Texas, to withdraw orders that relators contend

were made after the trial court lost plenary power over the case.

      After careful review of the petition and the mandamus record, we conclude

relators are not entitled to mandamus relief. The real parties in interest, Wave

Solutions, LLC and Brandon Luquette, filed a motion for sanctions before the trial

court signed an order of dismissal. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d
1
860, 863 (Tex. 2010) (“After a nonsuit, a trial court retains jurisdiction to address

collateral matters, such as motions for sanctions, even when such motions are filed

after the nonsuit, as well as jurisdiction over any remaining counterclaims.”); Scott

& White Mem’l Hosp. v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. 1996) (holding

that a trial court has authority to decide a motion for sanctions while it retains

plenary power, even after a nonsuit is taken). The order of dismissal, which stated

that the cause was dismissed on the plaintiff’s notice of non-suit without

mentioning the opposing party’s motion for sanctions, did not dispose of the

motion for sanctions. See Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92, 95-96

(Tex. 2009); Crites v. Collins, 284 S.W.3d 839, 840 (Tex. 2009). Relators have not

shown that the trial court signed orders in the case after the expiration of its

plenary power. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                          PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 21, 2015
Opinion Delivered January 22, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                         2