Anurithi Madugula A/K/A Anurithi Chikkerur v. FM 969 Commercial Development, LLC, Rathna Reddy, Vema Reddy, and Galaxy Realty Service

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 31, 2025
• Docket: 07-25-00009-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00009-CV

ANURITHI MADUGULA A/K/A ANURITHI CHIKKERUR, APPELLANT

V.

FM 969 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, RATHNA REDDY, VEMA REDDY, AND GALAXY REALTY SERVICE, APPELLEES

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Bastrop County, Texas Trial Court No. 24-22239, Honorable Jo Ann Ottis, Presiding

January 31, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Appellant, Anurithi Madugula a/k/a Anurithi Chikkerur, was declared a vexatious

litigant by the 353rd Judicial District Court of Travis County on November 6, 2020.

Consequently, Appellant is subject to a prefiling order which prohibits her from filing any

new litigation in any Texas court without first obtaining permission from the local

administrative judge. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 11.101(a) (granting trial

courts authority to enter orders prohibiting vexatious litigants from filing new litigation without permission from the local administrative judge), 11.102 (outlining the procedure

for obtaining permission from a local administrative judge); 11.103 (prohibiting a clerk of

a court from filing a litigation, original proceeding, or appeal by a vexatious litigant subject

to a prefiling order without an order from the local administrative judge permitting the

filing). Despite the prefiling order prohibiting Appellant from filing a new litigation, she

filed a notice of appeal in this cause from the trial court’s judgment dismissing her suit

against Appellees. 1

Chapter 11 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires courts to dismiss

new actions filed by a vexatious litigant when the litigant fails to file an order from the local

administrative judge permitting the filing of the new action. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 11.1035; Leonard v. Paxton, No. 03-19-00771-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS

3032, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 10, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal,

after notice, because vexatious litigant failed to provide order permitting its filing). By

letter of January 14, 2025, we admonished Appellant that this appeal was subject to

dismissal unless she filed an order granting the required permission by January 24.

Appellant has filed a response but did not file an order from the local administrative

judge. In her response, Appellant contends that her vexatious litigant status applies only

to litigation filed in Travis County district courts and not to litigation originating in Bastrop

County. Yet, the vexatious litigant statute clearly provides, however, that a “prefiling order

entered under Subsection [11.101(a)] . . . by a district or statutory county court applies to

each court in this state.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.101 (e) (emphasis

added); Madugula v. FM 969 Commer. Dev., LLC, No. 03-24-00565-CV, 2024 Tex. App.

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 2 LEXIS 7081 at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 2, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.). This statutory

language controls over verbiage within an order purporting to restrict vexatious litigant

status to particular areas of Texas. Madugula, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 7081 at *2 (holding

that the status of vexatious litigant applied statewide despite language in the order barring

Madugula from filing suits only in Travis County district courts).

Because Appellant is a vexatious litigant and has failed to file an order from the

local administrate judge granting permission to file this appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.1035(b).

Per Curiam