in Re: David Reiss and Spy Games, LLC ( 2022 )

GRANT and Opinion Filed June 21, 2022
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-00575-CV
IN RE DAVID REISS AND SPY GAMES, LLC, Relators
Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-02498
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Molberg
In this original proceeding, relators David Reiss and Spy Games, LLC seek to
compel the respondent trial court judge to rule on six pending motions that were
filed more than three to twenty-two months ago. Relators have also filed an
emergency motion seeking a stay of all trial court proceedings, including the June
27, 2022 trial. We requested and received real party in interest Jason Hanson’s
response in which he states he is taking no position regarding the relief requested in
relators’ petition and emergency motion.
This is the second time that we have been asked to address respondent’s
failure to rule on multiple pending motions in the same case. See In re Reiss, No. 05-
20-00708-CV, 2020 WL 6073881 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 15, 2020, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.). In the previous case, this Court conditionally granted
mandamus relief after relator Reiss complained about the trial court’s failure to rule
on seven motions that were pending from six to over twenty-four months. Id. at *1.
Having examined and considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, real
party’s response, and the applicable law, we conclude, once again, that the trial
court’s failure to rule on multiple pending motions warrants mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and order that the writ of mandamus issue
instanter.
BACKGROUND
The underlying proceeding is a contentious “business divorce” case between
Reiss and Hanson, two owners of Spy Games, LLC. Because the factual background
of the underlying suit is familiar to the parties, we do not recount it here.
In their mandamus petition, relators seek to compel the trial judge to rule on
the following properly filed motions and objections, all of which were the subject of
hearings conducted by the trial judge: (1) Plaintiffs’ No-Evidence Motion for
Summary Judgment, filed by relators on August 3, 2020, and heard on August 12,
2021; (2) Plaintiff David Reiss’ Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by
Reiss on June 24, 2021, and heard on August 12, 2021; (3) Plaintiffs’ Objections to
Defendant Jason R. Hanson’s Summary Judgment Attachments for His responses to
Plaintiffs’ No Evidence and Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment, filed by
relators on August 11, 2021, and heard on August 12, 2021; (4) Plaintiffs’ Motion
–2–
to Modify, Clarify, and/or Vacate Various Orders, filed by relators on January 26,
2022, and heard on May 3, 2022; (5) Plaintiff David Reiss’ Motion for
Reimbursement of Expenses and Motion to Require All Reimbursements to be
Approved by a Third Party, filed by Reiss on February 25, 2022, and heard on May
3, 2022; and (6) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Clarify and Permit Discovery Regarding
Claims Made by Plaintiffs and Defendant Jason R. Hanson, filed by relators on
March 1, 2022, and heard on May 3, 2022.
Originally set for trial on April 15, 2019, the underlying case has been reset
for trial eight times. The trial is currently set for June 27, 2022. At the May 3, 2022
hearing on the three most recently filed motions, relators’ counsel urged the trial
judge for a ruling on the summary judgment and discovery motions as soon as
possible, which relators “desperately need[ed].” The trial judge stated she would get
a ruling “by the end of the week” as long as the parties emailed their proposed orders
to the court coordinator.
The record reflects that, on May 5, 2022, relators filed and additionally
emailed the court coordinator a letter to the trial court calling attention to the pending
summary judgment motions, noting that it has been over eight months since the trial
court heard those motions. Relators included proposed orders for the summary
judgment motions. Also on May 5, 2022, relators filed and additionally emailed the
court coordinator a letter to the trial court calling attention to the three pending
motions heard on May 3, 2022. Relators again included proposed orders for the
–3–
motions. Relators’ counsel further emailed the court coordinator on May 18, 2022,
and again on May 27, 2022, asking her to remind the trial judge about the pending
motions.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when the relator can
show the trial judge clearly abused its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by
way of appeal. In re Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 998 S.W.2d 212, 215 (Tex. 1999) (orig.
proceeding); In re Tex. Am. Express, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 720, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2005, orig. proceeding). A trial judge abuses her discretion if she reaches a decision
that is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error
of law or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law. In re Olshan Found.
Repair Co., L.L.C., 277 S.W.3d 124, 129 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, orig.
proceeding).
ANALYSIS
The act of giving consideration to and ruling on a motion that is properly filed
and pending before a trial court is a ministerial act, and mandamus may issue to
compel the trial judge to act. In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d
743, 748 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2014, orig. proceeding); Barnes v.
State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.
proceeding). To obtain mandamus relief for a trial judge’s refusal to rule on a
motion, the relator must establish the motion was properly filed and has been
–4–
pending for a reasonable time; the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and the
trial judge refused to rule. Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d at 748.
A trial judge must rule “within a reasonable time” on motions that are properly
filed. In re Foster, 503 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016,
orig. proceeding); In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2008, orig. proceeding). Whether a reasonable period of time has elapsed depends
on the circumstances of the case. Id. at 662. “The test for determining what time
period is reasonable is not subject to exact formulation, and no ‘bright line’ separates
a reasonable time period from an unreasonable one.” Greater McAllen Star Props.,
Inc., 444 S.W.3d at 748 (quoting Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662).
We examine a “myriad” of criteria, including the trial court’s
actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act, the state
of the court’s docket, and the existence of other judicial and
administrative matters which must be addressed first.
Id. at 748–49.
While trial judges have broad discretion to manage their dockets and conduct
business in their courtrooms, this discretion is not unlimited. Clanton v. Clark, 639
S.W.2d 929, 930–31 (Tex. 1982). Trial courts also have a duty to tend to and
schedule cases so as to expeditiously dispose of them. King Fisher Marine Serv.,
L.P. v. Tamez, 443 S.W.3d 838, 843 (Tex. 2014); Clanton, 639 S.W.2d at 931.
In this case, the record before us does not reflect that any special docket
conditions or other matters have prevented the trial judge from ruling on the motions
that are the subject of this petition. Nor does real party attempt to defend the trial
–5–
court’s delay in resolving these matters. The ninth and current trial setting is for June
27, 2022, which is less than a week away. The motions were filed more than three
months to over twenty-two months ago; the summary judgment motions were heard
more than ten months ago; and the remaining motions were heard almost two months
ago. The record reflects that relators have requested rulings multiple times. Further,
respondent has a history of failing to rule in this case, which has already required
this Court to conditionally grant mandamus relief. See In re Reiss, 2020 WL
6073881, at *3. Based on the particular circumstances here, we conclude the motions
were properly filed and have been pending a reasonable time, relators requested
rulings on the motions, and the trial judge has failed to rule.
Thus, without addressing the merits of the subject motion, we grant the
petition and order that a writ of mandamus issue instanter. We direct the trial court
to rule on the subject motions within seven days of the date of this opinion. We also
grant relators’ emergency motion to the extent that we stay the trial. The stay shall
remain in effect until the trial court rules on the pending motions.
220575f.p05 /Ken Molberg//
KEN MOLBERG
JUSTICE
–6–