DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division Case 4:19-cv-01370 Document 14 Filed on 05/15/19 in TXSD Page 1 of 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Repairify, Inc., d/b/a asTech, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-1370 § AirPro Diagnostics LLC, § § Defendant. § DEFENDANT AIRPRO DIAGNOSTICS, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE Defendant AirPro Diagnostics, LLC files this Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Repairify, Inc., d/b/a asTech’s suit pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction), 12(b)(3) (improper venue), and 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (improper venue). Alternatively, Defendant AirPro Diagnostics seeks to transfer the venue for this suit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, to the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2 III. ARGUMENTS & AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... 4 A. Rule 12(b)(2) Legal Standard ............................................................................................. 4 1. AirPro’s Contacts with Texas Are Not Sufficient Such That AirPro Can Be Said to Be Essentially at Home in Texas; Thus AirPro is Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in Texas. ............................................................................................................................... 8 2. AirPro Has Not Engaged in Any Conduct Related to This Suit That Creates a Substantial Connection with Texas, and Thus is Not Subject to Specific Jurisdiction in Texas. ............................................................................................................................. 10 a. AirPro Did Not Purposefully Direct Any Activities Toward Texas. ...................... 10 b. Jurisdiction Should Not Be Imposed Simply Because Plaintiff Contends Its Injury Was Felt in Texas........................................................................................................... 13 c. The Assertion of Personal Jurisdiction over AirPro Is Both Unreasonable and Unfair. ............................................................................................................................ 15 B. Rule 12(b)(3) – Legal Standard ........................................................................................ 17 Defendant AirPro Diagnostics, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, and in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue i Case 4:19-cv-01370 Document 14 Filed on 05/15/19 in TXSD Page 2 of 28 1. Defendant AirPro Does Not Reside in This District. .............................................. 18 2. This District Does Not Have a Substantial Connection to Plaintiff’s Claims. ....... 18 3. In the Alternative, This Case Should Be Transferred in the Interest of Justice to the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.......................................................... 19 C. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) – Legal Standard .............................................................................. 20 1. Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer ................................................................... 21 2. Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer .................................................................... 22 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 23 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Aanestad v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 521 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1974) ................................................. 9 Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2000) ................................................ 5 Am. Eyewear, Inc. v. Peeper's Sunglasses & Accessories, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 895 (N.D. Tex. 2000) ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) .................................................................................................................................. 15, 19 Bernardi Bros., Inc. v. Pride Manufacturing, Inc., 427 F.2d 297 (3rd Cir. 1970) ......................... 9 BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) ...................................... 5 BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017)............................................................................ 8 Boyd v. Snyder, 44 F. Supp. 2d 966 (N.D. Ill. 1999) .................................................................... 22 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) ................................................................................................................... 10, 15, 16 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) ............................................................ 6, 15 Carrot Bunch Co., Inc. v. Computer Friends, Inc., 218 F.Supp.2d 820 (N.D. Tex. 2002) .......... 12 Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) ................................................................ 7, 8, 10, 18 Dallas Texans Soccer Club v. Major League Soccer Players Union, 247 F. Supp. 3d 784 (E.D. Tex. 2017) ............................................................................................................................... 4, 5 Del Monte Corp. v. Everett Steamship Corp., 402 F. Supp. 237 (N.D.Cal.1973) .......................... 9 ExpressJet Airlines, Inc. v. RBC Capital Markets, Corp., No. H-09-992, 2009 WL 2244468 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2009) .................................................................................................................... 22 Financial Cas. and Sur., Inc. v. Zouvelos, Civil Action No. H-11-2509, 2012 WL 2886861 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 13, 2012) .................................................................................................................... 23 Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) ........................................................................... 19 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operation, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S 915 (2011) ....................................... 8 Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) ............................................................................................................................. 5, 6, 7, 10 Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) ............................................................................ 20 Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077 (5th Cir. 2008) ........................................... 8, 18 Head v. Las Vegas Sands, LLC, 298 F. Supp. 3d 963 (S.D. Tex. 2018) ........................................ 7 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) .......................... 5, 6, 10 Houston Trial Reports, Inc. v. LRP Publications, Inc., 85 F.Supp.2d 663 (S.D. Tex. 1999) ........................................................................................................... 20, 21, 22 Defendant AirPro Diagnostics, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, and in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue ii Case 4:19-cv-01370 Document 14 Filed on 05/15/19 in TXSD Page 3 of 28 Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) ........................................................................................................................................ 15 LCW Auto. Corp. v. Restivo Enterprises, No. SA-04-CA-0361-XR, 2004 WL 2203440 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2004) .................................................................................................................. 11 LeBouef v. Gulf Operators, Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (S.D. Tex. 1998) ..................................... 21 Marin v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., No. SA-16-CA-497-FB-HJB, 2017 WL 5494087 (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2017).............................................................................................................................. 9 Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) ................................. 6 Mink v. AAAA Development, LLC, 190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999) .......................................... 12, 18 Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg,, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007)............................. 5, 6, 7, 10 Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014) .................................................. 7 NexLearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc., 859 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................. 8 Reed v. Fina Oil & Chem. Co., 995 F.Supp. 705 (E.D. Tex. 1998) ............................................. 21 Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002)..................................................................... 5, 12, 14 Rosemond v. United Airlines, Inc., No.-H-13-2190, 2014 WL 1338690 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2014) ................................................................................................................................................... 22 Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355 (Tex. 1990) .................................................................... 5 Singletary v. B.R.X., Inc., 828 F.2d 1135 (5th Cir. 1987) ............................................................. 11 Southmark
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Court Reform, Texas Style
    SMU Law Review Volume 21 Issue 2 Article 3 1967 Court Reform, Texas Style Clarence A. Guittard Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Clarence A. Guittard, Court Reform, Texas Style, 21 SW L.J. 451 (1967) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol21/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. COURT REFORM, TEXAS STYLE by Clarence A. Guittard* R EFORM of the judiciary has been a perennial theme among Texas lawyers. In July, 1918, the Texas Bar Association, meeting at Wich- ita Falls, heard an address by Roscoe Pound on "Judicial Organization"' and adopted the report of a special committee proposing to replace article V of the Constitution of 1876 with a judicial article that would be con- sidered advanced, even by the standards of 1967. The proposal embodied the principles of unification, flexibility of jurisdiction and assignment of judicial personnel, and responsible supervision of the entire system by the supreme court, all as recommended by Pound.! In support of this proposal, the association published a pamphlet point- ing out the need for judicial reform in emphatic terms: The public is in open rebellion. The best of our judges, working in the present machine, cannot always administer justice. The rightful compen- sation of lawyers is enormously decreased, their labors increased, by the intolerable expense, complication, delays and uncertainties inherent in the system.
    [Show full text]
  • 170504Seq.Pdf
    PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS OPEN MEETING AGENDA THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2017, 9:30 A.M. Commissioners' Hearing Room 7th Floor, William B. Travis Building The following item will be taken up first without discussion: 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 Project No. 46665 - Open Meeting Agenda items without an associated control number. WATER 1. Docket No. 45720; SOAH Docket No. 473-16-3831.WS - Application of Rio Concho Aviation, Inc. for a Rate/Tariff Change. (Final Order) Carlos Carrasco 2. Docket No. 46627; SOAH Docket No. 473-17-2068.WS - Complaint of Cherelle Roberts Against Hornsby Bend Utility Company. (Final Order) John Kramer 3. Docket No. 44665 - Application of 439 Water Supply Corporation and Bell County Water Control and Improvement District 3 for Sale, Transfer, or Merger of Certificate Rights in Bell County. (Final Order) Susan E. Goodson 4. Docket No. 46309 - Petition for an Order Appointing a Manager to Aero Valley Water Service in Denton County. (Discussion and possible action) 5. Docket No. 46553 - Application of Carroll Water Company, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates. (Discussion and possible action) 6. Project No. 46151 - Project to Amend 16 Texas Admin. Code § 24.113, Relating to Revocation or Amendment of a Water or Sewer Certificate and § 24.120 Relating to Single Certification in Incorporated or Annexed Areas. (Proposal for Adoption) Kennedy Meier and Tammy Benter 7. Discussion and possible action regarding implementation of state legislation affecting water and sewer companies, current and projected rulemaking projects, and Commission priorities. COMMUNICATIONS 8. Docket No. 46894; SOAH Docket No. 473-17-3349 - Complaint of Mike Coker Against Southwestern Bell Telephone, LP DBA AT&T Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Current Judicial Workload in Texas, 2007
    Measuring Current Judicial Workload in Texas, 2007 June 2008 Research Division National Center for State Courts Measuring Current Judicial Workload in Texas, 2007 Measuring Current Judicial Workload in Texas, 2007 Authors Brian J. Ostrom Matthew Kleiman Neil LaFountain The National Center for State Courts June 2008 This study was funded in part under grant SJI-06-N- 133 from the State Justice Institute, and in part by the Court Improvement Program of the Supreme Court of Texas Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and Families through assistance of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. The points of view expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute or the Court Improvement Program. Copyright 2008, National Center for State Courts Measuring Current Judicial Workload in Texas, 2007 Acknowledgements JUDICIAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable COMMITTEE: contributions of the judicial officers of Texas to this Workload Assessment project. An undertaking of this nature is not possible without the assistance of Camile G. DuBose, Associate Judge, Child the dedicated members of the Texas judiciary who Protection Court of South Texas gave their valuable time to this project. Melissa Fischer, District Court Administrator, San Antonio Over the course of this 18-month study, we were fortunate to work with a distinguished advisory Honorable Wilford Flowers, Judge, 147th District committee that was instrumental in refining the Court, Austin approach and content of our evaluation. The Texas Honorable David D. Garcia, Judge, County Judicial Needs Assessment Committee, comprised of Criminal Court No.
    [Show full text]
  • Template COURT ADMINISTRATION TASK FORCE
    State Bar of Texas Report of the Court Administration Task Force — OCTOBER 2008 — This publication was developed by the Court Administration Task Force, a diverse group of stakeholders, appointed by Gib Walton, 2007-2008 State Bar of Texas President. The recommendations presented in this report represent a consensus of the members of the Court Administration Task Force and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the State Bar, its Board of Directors, members or volunteers. Further, the inclusion of a comment about any past or potential legislation in this report does not indicate that the State Bar is taking a legislative position. The State Bar’s Legislative Policy Committee has the sole discretion to review legislation and to make recommendations to the State Bar Board of Directors regarding any position that might be taken. This publication is intended for educational and informational purposes only. — Executive Summary — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice . contributes, more than any other circumstance, to impressing upon the minds of the people affection, esteem, and reverence towards the government. Alexander Hamilton New York Delegate The Federalist, No. 17 This Report addresses the complexity, shared local and state responsibility, and decentralization in the Texas court system. The Texas Constitution and statutes establish a four-tiered system of state courts: district courts, constitutional county courts, statutory county courts, and justice of the peace courts. Each court was intended to have its own jurisdiction, consistent between the counties, generally based upon the severity of the civil or criminal issues in question. The system, however, actually presents a patchwork array of courts with significant overlapping jurisdiction that differs from county to county.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawnotes, the St. Mary's University School of Law Newsletter
    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Law Notes School of Law Publications Fall 2006 LawNotes, The St. Mary's University School of Law Newsletter St. Mary's University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/lawnotes Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation St. Mary's University School of Law, "LawNotes, The St. Mary's University School of Law Newsletter" (2006). Law Notes. 8. https://commons.stmarytx.edu/lawnotes/8 This Newsletter is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Publications at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Notes by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Law School Accepting Applications to Evening Law Program The School of Law is now accepting applications to the evening law program, which will be re-established in the fall of 2007 in a move that is expected to attract professionals and others who might not be able to attend day classes. Enrollment will be capped at approximately 75 students. Restarting the evening program, which received approval from the American Bar Association this past summer, extends the school's mission of serving the broader Bill Piatt, dean, explains (Ourtroom enhan(ements at preview. community, said Bill Piatt, dean. "Over the last several years, we have received numerous inquiries about the New Courtroom Unveiled possibility of bringing back the evening program. There are many people out there Sneak Preview Held to Show Off Facility in the communities we serve who would like to pursue a legal education but can't St.
    [Show full text]
  • Bexar County District Clerk Divorce Decree
    Bexar County District Clerk Divorce Decree GordonMarko autolyzing analogizes livelily esuriently while orholograph thrusts any Sparky Nijinsky. mollycoddles decussately or untwining collectedly. Ty retranslate trickishly? Lanny remains unmoral after Harris county divorce county clerk We turn first offense details should be available through kerr county elections department historic commission: if applying to be! Contact mindi johns county district makes it is responsible for this is a good rates. If a decree for free divorce fast, facts on bexar county district clerk divorce decree. Is designed for harris county court and judicial terms that the information as an author and more online case name statement filings. Does bexar county criminal cases while conducting all that bolded, bexar county district clerk divorce decree concerning security of initials. Third largest collection companies or street and prices here for all visitors get your. Do not mean that suit to be treading towards rocky roads with all! If you should consult with an attorney representing clients their support? Can now utilizes advanced search bexar county commissioners court case title. This decree in bexar county, which the daily ems personnel civil legal advice should be published in bexar county district clerk divorce decree. Networking opportunities list, we do vary depending on file for upshur county circuit court proceedings for any way from their. Philadelphia county clerk county district divorce decree of district. During jury clerk, etc where are not allowed by video crew gained rare access via email us federal court? Osano makes it cannot guarantee these offenses that way in bexar county district clerk divorce decree.
    [Show full text]
  • 542-9300 Mondrik & Associates FAX: (512)
    CHRISTINA A. MONDRIK VOICE: (512) 542-9300 Mondrik & Associates FAX: (512) 542-9301 11044 Research Blvd, Suite B-400 [email protected] Austin, Texas 78759 www.mondriklaw.com BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION EDUCATION: J.D. with Honors – The University of Texas B.B.A. in Accounting – The University of Texas PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: Admitted to Practice Law: Texas District Courts, Third Court of Appeals, Texas Supreme Court U.S. Tax Court U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas Board Certified – Tax Law – Texas Board of Legal Specialization Certified Public Accountant Member – State Bar of Texas since 2001 – Section of Taxation Treasurer (2017) Advanced Tax Law Course (various), Chair (2003) Annual Meeting Planning Committee Chair (2014) CLE Committee – Tax Section, Chair (2003) CLE Committee – Tax Section, Vice Chair (2002) IRS Austin Local Practitioner Panel Liaison (2002-2013) Leadership Academy Planning Committee (2012-13, 2014-15) Leadership Academy Chair and Co-Chair (2016-17) Solo & Small Firms Committee, Chair (2008-2009) Solo & Small Firms Committee, Vice Chair (2009-2015) Tax Controversy Committee, Chair (2005) Tax Controversy Committee, Vice Chair (2004) Tax Section Council (2005-2007; 2010-2013) Member – American Bar Association – Section of Taxation State and Local Tax Executive Committee (Sales & Use Tax) (2013-2017) Member – Austin Bar Association Member – Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants Awards Committee (2010–2011, 2012–2013) Board of Directors (2007–2013, 2016-2019) Committee on Relations with the IRS
    [Show full text]
  • Financing the Judiciary in Texas
    LEGISLATIVELEGISLATIVE BBUDGETUDGET BBOARDOARD Financing the Judiciary in Texas Legislative Primer SUBMITTED TO THE 84TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE FOURTH EDITION LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF JULY 2014 Financing the Judiciary in Texas Legislative Primer SUBMITTED TO THE 84TH LEGISLATURE FOURTH EDITION LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF JULY 2014 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1 Overview of Texas Court System Structure ........................................................................................................2 Judicial Selection in Texas..................................................................................................................................5 Signifi cant Actions of the Eighty-Third Legislature ............................................................................................6 STATE FUNDING FOR APPELLATE COURT OPERATIONS .........................................................................9 The Supreme Court .............................................................................................................................................9 The Court of Criminal Appeals ........................................................................................................................10 The Courts of Appeals .....................................................................................................................................11 STATE FUNDING FOR TRIAL
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Courts a Survey
    TEXAS COURTS A SURVEY CASES & MATERIALS 2011-2012 ALEX WILSON ALBRIGHT SENIOR LECTURER UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW IMPRIMATUR PRESS A DIVISION OF GRAIL & TUCKER LEGAL PUBLISHING, L.C. 1349 EMPIRE CENTRAL DR., SUITE 525 DALLAS, TEXAS 75247 TELEPHONE: (800) 811-6725 FACSIMILE: (214) 879-9939 www.ImprimaturPress.com Copyright © 1996-2011 by Alex Wilson Albright All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems without prior written permission of the copyright holder who may be contacted through the publisher. Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-1-60503-050-0 These materials are prepared for classroom use. It is not a substitute for specific legal research. The cases and laws are discussed generally and the author’s comments should not be relied on for the basis of a legal opinion or course of action, without careful review of applicable authorities including those cases decided since the publication of this book. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO TEXAS COURTS A. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure ......................................................................................................... 1 B. The Adversary System and Civil Procedure ............................................................................................. 2 C. An Overview of Texas Pretrial Procedure ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ORDER of the SUPREME COURT of TEXAS 13®92 Misc
    ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 13®92 Misc. Docket No. 99- Approval of Rules of Civil Trial Division, Harris County District Courts IT IS ORDEIYED that: Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 3a, the Supreme Court of Texas approves the attached Local Rules of the Civil Trial Division of the Harris County, Texas, District Courts. The approval of these rules is temporary pending further orders of the Court. By the Court, en banc, in chambers, this a (e day of 1999. ' Craig T. Enoch, Justice Priscilla R. Owen, Justice ^&kA.A-tk kriet O'Neill, Justice a-r-^ Albertc/ R. Gonzales, Justice Misc. Docket No. 99 -9092 Page 2 of 2 RULES of the CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION • Harris County District Courts Rule 1. OBJECTIVE OF RULES. The objective of the rules of the Civil Trial Division of the District Courts of Harris County is to obtain a just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication of the rights of litigants under established principles of substantive law and established rules of procedural law. To the end that this objective may be attained with as great expedition and dispatch and at the least expense, both to the litigants and to the state, as may be practicable, the rules shall be applied to ensure that, so far as reasonably possible, all matters are brought to trial or final disposition in conformity with the following standards: (a) Civil jury cases within 18 months from appearance date; (b) Civil non-jury cases within 12 months from appearance date. Rule 2. REPORTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Appeals First District of Texas
    Opinion issued December 22, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00583-CV ——————————— THE HONORABLE MARK HENRY, COUNTY JUDGE OF GALVESTON COUNTY, Appellant V. THE HONORABLE LONNIE COX, JUDGE OF THE 56TH DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON COUNTY, Appellee On Appeal from the 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 15-CV-0583 O P I N I O N In this interlocutory appeal,1 appellant, the Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge of Galveston County, challenges the district court’s2 order granting appellee, the Honorable Lonnie Cox, Judge of the 56th District Court and Local Administrative Judge of Galveston County, a temporary injunction suspending the termination of the employment of Bonita Quiroga, the Galveston County Director of Judicial Administration, directing the reinstatement of her employment, and enjoining Henry and “his agents, servants, and representatives, and those acting in concert with him,” from taking action against Quiroga, her department, and her staff. In four issues, Henry contends that the “temporary injunction order has become moot on appeal,” the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the temporary injunction, the district court “did not validly exercise its supervisory jurisdiction” in granting the temporary injunction, and the temporary injunction is otherwise invalid. We affirm. Background In his amended petition, Judge Cox alleges that in 2000, the judges of the Galveston County District Courts and County Courts at Law “selected” Quiroga as 1 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2015). 2 The Honorable Sharolyn Wood, sitting by assignment.
    [Show full text]
  • It's All in the Details: Making Texas Local Rules Accessible, Helpful, and Sensible
    2020 2021 “IT’S ALL IN THE DETAILS: MAKING TEXAS LOCAL RULES ACCESSIBLE, HELPFUL, AND SENSIBLE” Elizabeth M. Fraley* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 2 II. THE TEXAS COURT RULES FRAMEWORK ...................................................... 3 III. THE HISTORY OF LOCAL RULES IN TEXAS ..................................................... 5 IV. THE PROBLEMS WITH LOCAL RULES ............................................................ 7 A. LOCAL RULES ARE DIFFICULT TO FIND..................................................... 8 B. LOCAL RULES LACK CONSISTENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION. .............. 9 C. CONFUSION AND INCONSISTENT STRUCTURE WITHIN A COUNTY ................. 12 1. STANDING ORDERS ......................................................................... 12 2. OUTDATED LOCAL RULES ................................................................ 13 V. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS ............................................................................ 15 A. MAKE LOCAL RULES EASIER TO FIND. ................................................... 15 B. STANDARDIZE THE STRUCTURE OF LOCAL RULES. .................................... 16 C. UTILIZE LOCAL RULES FOR RAPIDLY CHANGING ISSUES. ........................... 18 D. STREAMLINE THE LOCAL RULE APPROVAL PROCEDURE. ........................... 19 E. MANDATE THAT COURTS MAINTAIN UPDATED LOCAL RULES. .................... 19 VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]