In a case pitting appellate firms who are frequent flyers at the Texas Supreme Court, the Court has denied several defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus that claimed a series of procedural abuses by the trial court in a personal injury action.
In re C&J Well Services, Inc.; C&J Well Services, Inc. d/b/a C&J Energy Services; C&J Energy Services, Inc; Nextier Oilfield Solutions, Inc. f/k/a C&J Energy Services, Inc; Nextier Completion Solutions, Inc. f/k/a C&J Energy Services, Inc.; Nextier Completion Solutions, Inc.; Basic Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a BES Holdings Co.; Basic Energy Services, L.P.; Basic Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a BES Holdings Co.; Basic Energy Services, L.P.; Basic Energy Services GP, L.L.C.; and Genero Gonzales (No. 24-0553; denied October 15, 2024) arose from a 2019 vehicle collision between Plaintiff Roger Cole and Gonzalez, an employee of C&J Well Services, Inc. d/b/a C&J Energy Services. Plaintiff sued the employee and his employer, as well as at least six other entities. Relators claim that those additional parties had nothing to do with the accident and should be dismissed from the lawsuit but had difficulty scheduling hearings on their dispositive motions through the trial court’s electronic system. Relators eventually got them set, but Plaintiff moved to continue the hearings so that it could depose Relators’ corporate representative. Relators claims that it tried 19 times to reset the hearing through the electronic system during the summer of 2023 but could get no open dates through the system. It also asserts that the trial court did not permit parties to set summary judgment hearings by submission.
When the trial date rolled in August 21, Relator moved for a continuance based on the illness of one of its lead trial attorneys and the Plaintiff’s repeated cancellation of expert depositions. A continuance was granted, and Relator resumed attempting to obtain settings for its dispositive motions. It succeeded in getting a September setting, but Plaintiff moved to quash the hearing notices. The trial court quickly granted the motion to quash and further prohibited Relators from filing any dispositive motions on either the oral hearing or submission docket for the duration of the litigation. Relators sought mandamus and an emergency stay from the Houston [14th] Court of Appeals, which ordered a stay. At that point the trial court sua sponte denied Relators’ motions for summary judgment without ever hearing them. The court of appeals later lifted the stay and denied Relators’ petition for mandamus without explanation. Relators sought relief from SCOTX, which likewise denied it.
For its part, the Real Party in Interest (Plaintiff) argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that mandamus is not available for a denial of summary judgment. Plaintiff’s brief refutes many of the details described above and, moreover, that Relators failed to follow the court’s local rules with regard to setting summary judgment motions. In any event, Plaintiff asserts that mandamus is improper because Relators have an adequate remedy on appeal to determine their no evidence points.
This case is interesting to us because of the legal eagle firepower on both sides of the argument, including Wright Close & Barger for Relators and Beck Redden for the Real Party in Interest. Whatever eventually happens at the trial court, we will keep an eye on this case to see if anything further comes of it.
