Bob Chambers v. John M. O'Quinn, Individually D/B/A O'Quinn & Laminack, and John M. O'Quinn, P.C.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Bob Chambers v. John M. O'Quinn, Individually D/B/A O'Quinn & Laminack, and John M. O'Quinn, P.C.

DecidedSeptember 29, 2006

Docket01-04-01029-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Bob Chambers v. John M. O'Quinn, Individually D/B/A O'Quinn & Laminack, and John M. O'Quinn, P.C. (Bob Chambers v. John M. O'Quinn, Individually D/B/A O'Quinn & Laminack, and John M. O'Quinn, P.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bob Chambers v. John M. O'Quinn, Individually D/B/A O'Quinn & Laminack, and John M. O'Quinn, P.C., (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion issued September 29, 2006

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-04-01029-CV

BOB CHAMBERS, et al., Appellants

V.

JOHN O’QUINN, JOHN M. O’QUINN, P.C., and JOHN M. O’QUINN D/B/A O’QUINN & LAMINACK, Appellees

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1999-58265

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This suit was brought by appellants, Bob Chambers and 182 others, against John O’Quinn, John M. O’Quinn, P.C., and John M. O’Quinn D/B/A O’Quinn & Laminack, for legal malpractice. Appellants appeal from the trial court’s orders dismissing their suit for want of prosecution and overruling their motion for reinstatement and new trial. We determine whether we have jurisdiction to decide (1) whether the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motion to compel arbitration or (2) whether the trial court erred in dismissing appellants’ suit for want of prosecution. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Background

Appellants filed a legal-malpractice suit against appellees on November 23, 1999. Appellees filed a motion to compel arbitration. On April 14, 2000, the trial court granted appellees’ motion to compel arbitration.

On December 20, 2001, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court, complaining of the order compelling arbitration. We issued an opinion on January 7, 2002, denying appellants’ petition for writ of mandamus because it was unverified. See In re Chambers, No. 01-01-01216-CV, 2002 WL 24567 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 7, 2002, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication). On January 10, 2002, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, asking that court to order the trial court to withdraw its order compelling arbitration. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued an opinion on February 7, 2002, denying appellants’ petition for writ of mandamus. On March 18, 2002, appellants filed another petition for writ of mandamus in the Texas Supreme Court, which petition was also denied.

On January 15, 2004, the trial court signed an order decreeing that “unless a final arbitration hearing on [appellants’] claims has commenced before the American Arbitration Association on or before July 9, 2004, [appellants’] claims shall be DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.” On July 21, 2004, the trial court signed an order dismissing appellants’ suit for want of prosecution because no final arbitration hearing had commenced by July 9, 2004. On August 5, 2004, appellants filed a motion for reinstatement or new trial. After a hearing on August 20, 2004, the trial court denied appellants’ motion for reinstatement or new trial. On September 22, 2004, appellants filed this appeal from the trial court’s dismissal for want of prosecution.

After the dismissal, the parties proceeded to arbitration. Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment in those proceedings. The arbitrator granted appellees’ summary-judgment motion and entered an award that appellants take nothing on their claims. Appellants filed a new lawsuit to vacate the arbitration award. The same trial court that had dismissed appellants’ suit for want of prosecution, the 61st District Court, held a hearing on appellants’ application for vacatur. The trial court entered a final judgment on June 10, 2005, denying appellants’ request to vacate the arbitration award and confirming the arbitration award. Appellants filed another appeal among the same parties in this Court from the trial court’s June 10 final judgment. Order Compelling Arbitration

Appellants argue in their first point of error that the trial court erred by granting appellees’ motion to compel arbitration.

An order compelling arbitration is an unappealable interlocutory order; however, mandamus relief is proper when the trial court improperly issues an order compelling arbitration. In re Am. Homestar of Lancaster, Inc., 50 S.W.3d 480, 483 (Tex. 2001); Bates v. MTH Homes-Texas, L.P., 177 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §171.098 (Vernon Supp. 2005).

On December 20, 2001, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. We issued an opinion on January 7, 2002, denying appellants’ petition for writ of mandamus because it was unverified. See In re Chambers, 2002 WL 24567. On January 10, 2002, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, asking the court to order the trial court to withdraw its order compelling arbitration. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued an opinion on February 7, 2002, denying appellants’ petition for writ of mandamus. On March 18, 2002, appellants filed another petition for writ of mandamus in the Texas Supreme Court, which petition was also denied. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court have already denied mandamus relief to appellants on this issue of whether the trial court improperly granted appellees’ motion to compel arbitration. We do not have appellate jurisdiction to review the Fourteenth Court of Appeals’s or Texas Supreme Court’s rulings in the hereinabove mentioned original proceedings. See Ammex Warehouse Co. v. Archer, 381 S.W.2d 478, 484 (Tex. 1964); Dorsett v. State, No. 02-06-173-CR, 2006 WL 2034301, *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 20, 2006, orig. proceeding)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion issued September 29, 2006

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-04-01029-CV

BOB CHAMBERS, et al., Appellants

V.

JOHN O’QUINN, JOHN M. O’QUINN, P.C., and JOHN M. O’QUINN D/B/A O’QUINN & LAMINACK, Appellees

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1999-58265

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This suit was brought by appellants, Bob Chambers and 182 others, against John O’Quinn, John M. O’Quinn, P.C., and John M. O’Quinn D/B/A O’Quinn & Laminack, for legal malpractice. Appellants appeal from the trial court’s orders dismissing their suit for want of prosecution and overruling their motion for reinstatement and new trial. We determine whether we have jurisdiction to decide (1) whether the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motion to compel arbitration or (2) whether the trial court erred in dismissing appellants’ suit for want of prosecution. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Background

Appellants filed a legal-malpractice suit against appellees on November 23, 1999. Appellees filed a motion to compel arbitration. On April 14, 2000, the trial court granted appellees’ motion to compel arbitration.

On December 20, 2001, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court, complaining of the order compelling arbitration. We issued an opinion on January 7, 2002, denying appellants’ petition for writ of mandamus because it was unverified. See In re Chambers, No. 01-01-01216-CV, 2002 WL 24567 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 7, 2002, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication). On January 10, 2002, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, asking that court to order the trial court to withdraw its order compelling arbitration. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued an opinion on February 7, 2002, denying appellants’ petition for writ of mandamus. On March 18, 2002, appellants filed another petition for writ of mandamus in the Texas Supreme Court, which petition was also denied.

On January 15, 2004, the trial court signed an order decreeing that “unless a final arbitration hearing on [appellants’] claims has commenced before the American Arbitration Association on or before July 9, 2004, [appellants’] claims shall be DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.” On July 21, 2004, the trial court signed an order dismissing appellants’ suit for want of prosecution because no final arbitration hearing had commenced by July 9, 2004. On August 5, 2004, appellants filed a motion for reinstatement or new trial. After a hearing on August 20, 2004, the trial court denied appellants’ motion for reinstatement or new trial. On September 22, 2004, appellants filed this appeal from the trial court’s dismissal for want of prosecution.

After the dismissal, the parties proceeded to arbitration. Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment in those proceedings. The arbitrator granted appellees’ summary-judgment motion and entered an award that appellants take nothing on their claims. Appellants filed a new lawsuit to vacate the arbitration award. The same trial court that had dismissed appellants’ suit for want of prosecution, the 61st District Court, held a hearing on appellants’ application for vacatur. The trial court entered a final judgment on June 10, 2005, denying appellants’ request to vacate the arbitration award and confirming the arbitration award. Appellants filed another appeal among the same parties in this Court from the trial court’s June 10 final judgment. Order Compelling Arbitration

Appellants argue in their first point of error that the trial court erred by granting appellees’ motion to compel arbitration.

An order compelling arbitration is an unappealable interlocutory order; however, mandamus relief is proper when the trial court improperly issues an order compelling arbitration. In re Am. Homestar of Lancaster, Inc., 50 S.W.3d 480, 483 (Tex. 2001); Bates v. MTH Homes-Texas, L.P., 177 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §171.098 (Vernon Supp. 2005).

On December 20, 2001, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. We issued an opinion on January 7, 2002, denying appellants’ petition for writ of mandamus because it was unverified. See In re Chambers, 2002 WL 24567. On January 10, 2002, appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, asking the court to order the trial court to withdraw its order compelling arbitration. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued an opinion on February 7, 2002, denying appellants’ petition for writ of mandamus. On March 18, 2002, appellants filed another petition for writ of mandamus in the Texas Supreme Court, which petition was also denied. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court have already denied mandamus relief to appellants on this issue of whether the trial court improperly granted appellees’ motion to compel arbitration. We do not have appellate jurisdiction to review the Fourteenth Court of Appeals’s or Texas Supreme Court’s rulings in the hereinabove mentioned original proceedings. See Ammex Warehouse Co. v. Archer, 381 S.W.2d 478, 484 (Tex. 1964); Dorsett v. State, No. 02-06-173-CR, 2006 WL 2034301, *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 20, 2006, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.8.

Moreover, it is well-settled that a controversy must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. 2005); Bd. of Adjustment of San Antonio v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tex. 2002); Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). “If a controversy ceases to exist—“the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’—the case becomes moot.” Wende, 92 S.W.3d at 427 (citations omitted). Because arbitration is over and a final judgment has been rendered as to all issues, appellants’ complaint that the trial court erred by granting appellees’ motion to compel arbitration is moot.

We thus decline to address appellants’ first point of error.

Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Appellants argue in their second point of error that the trial court erred in dismissing their suit for want of prosecution and request that the trial court’s dismissal be reversed.

The trial court signed an order on July 21, 2004, dismissing appellants’ suit for want of prosecution because no final arbitration hearing had commenced by July 9, 2004, as ordered. After the dismissal, the parties proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator granted appellees’ summary-judgment motion and entered an award that appellants take nothing on their claims. Appellants filed a new lawsuit to vacate the arbitration award. The same trial court that dismissed appellants’ suit for want of prosecution in this matter held a hearing on appellants’ application for vacatur. The trial court entered a final judgment on June 10, 2005, denying appellants’ request to vacate the arbitration award and confirming the arbitration award. Section 171.083 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allowed appellants to seek a court order vacating the arbitration award after the conclusion of the arbitration. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §171.083 (Vernon Supp. 2005). Appellants did this before the same court.

Because arbitration is over and the same trial court that dismissed appellants’ suit for want of prosecution has entered a final judgment in the same matter, appellants’ complaint that the trial court erred by dismissing appellants’ suit for want of prosecution is moot.

We thus decline to address appellants’ second point of error.

Conclusion

We lack jurisdiction over an appeal in which issues are moot and for which there is no appellate jurisdiction. See Hallman, 159 S.W.3d at 642; Ammex Warehouse Co., 381 S.W.2d at 484; see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Tim Taft

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Hanks.

Appendix A

1. ALLEN, ANGELESTINE

2. ALLEN, ALTON

3. ALLEN, BERTRAND

4. ANDERSON, DONALD

5. ARCLESSE, ANDRE

6. ARCLESSE, FRANKIE

7. ARCLESSE, CLARENCE

8. ARCLESSE, CLARENCE (JR.)

9. AUGUST, ANTHONY

10. BABERS, HENRY

11. BABERS, ABDULAH

12. BABERS, RODERICK

13. BABERS, MARIE

14. BANKS, PARIS

15. BELL, DOROTHY

16. BELL, ALECIA

17. BLACKSHEAR, JERRY

18. BLACKSHEAR, OLEVIA

19. BLACKSHEAR, THELMA

20. BOLDEN, SHERRY

21. BOUGERE, CECILIA

22. BOUGERE, ROME

23. BOUGERE, ROME (JR.)

24. BOYD, BIRDIE

25. BOYD, WILLIAM (JR.)

26. BOYD, ANGELA

27. BOYD, RODERICK

28. BOYD, RYAN

29. BROADNAX, EZELL

30. BROADNAX, IRENE

31. BROADNAX, SHARON

32. BROWN, CEDRIC

33. BROWN, LATREYA

34. BROWN, LATANYA

35. BRYANT, EARNESTINE

36. BUCKNER, ARTHUR (II)

37. BUCKNER, SANCHA

38. BUCKNER, ARTHUR (III)

39. BUCKNER, MARTHA

40. CAMPBELL, JOHN

41. CARMEN, LEVON

42. CARMEN, MARVI

43. CARMEN, LIONEL

44. CHAMBERS, BOB

45. CHAMBERS, DANIEL

46. CHAMBERS, KEVIN D.

47. CHAMBERS, KENNETH W. (SR.)

48. CHAMBERS, KENNETH W. (JR.)

49. CHAMBERS, BOBBY

50. CHAMBERS, SANDRA

51. CHAMBERS, CHRISTINA

52. CHAMBERS, COURTNEY

53. COMEAUX, ANN GELL

54. COMEAUX, REV. LEARON

55. COMEAUX, SANDRA

56. COMEAUX, LEARON (JR.)

57. COTTON, MARILYN

58. DAVIS, JAMES

59. DAVIS, JASON

60. DAVIS, NIKIA

61. DAVIS, LOIS

62. DEMBY, HERBERT

63. DEMBY, ROSA

64. DIXON, LAWRENCE

65. DUGAR, JOSEPH

66. DUPLECHAIN, PATRICIA

67. DUPLECHAIN, LAWRENCE

68. ERZELL, KIRK

69. ETIENNE, PEARLEY

70. ETIENNE, D. DYRON

71. ETIENNE, ADAM

72. ETIENNE, DEANDRA

73. FACTOR, JERRY

74. FACTOR, JACQUELINE

75. FIELDER, VIVIAN

76. FIELDER, OTIS

77. FOSTER, JANISHA

78. FOSTER, RAIMON

79. FOSTER, JANICE

80. FREEMAN, BETTY

81. GANTS, BARTHOLOMEW

82. GARDNER, ANITA

83. GARRETT, JAMES

84. GEORGE, KENNETH

85. GEORGE, ALICE

86. GIPSON, LATRICE

87. GIPSON, REGINALD

88. GLOVER, PERRY

89. GLOVER, ROSA

90. GLOVER, TELISHA

91. GLOVER, TRACY

92. GRADY, WILLIAM

93. GREEN, LUCY

94. GREER, VERONICA

95. GREER, LACHEA

96. GUILLORY, FALONIA

97. GUILLORY, JOHN

98. GUY, JOHN

99. GUY, BETTIE

100. HAMILTON, HELEN

101. HOLLEY, CATHRESHA

102. JACKSON, OLETHA

103. JOHNSON, DIMITRIA

104. JOHNSON, MONTIQUE

105. JOHNSON, RUFUS

106. JOHNSON, FERDANA

107. JOHNSON, DOROTHY

108. JOHNSON, FREDDIE (JR.)

109. JONES, DARRELL

110. JORDAN, DARRELL

111. JORDAN, VERNA

112. JORDEN, BOBBY (JR.)

113. JORDEN, EBONY

114. JORDEN, ROSA

115. JORDEN, ROSALYN

116. JORDEN, BOBBY

117. JORDEN, BOBBY (SR.)

118. JOSEPH, LEROY

119. KINNERSON, TERRENCE

120. KINNEY, DAVIS

121. LEE, LILLYANN

122. LEWIS, RODNEY

123. LEWIS, RUBY

124. LEWIS, JOHN

125. LINER, BETTY

126. LINER, LEON

127. LOTT, WILLIAM

128. MAYS, CHERYL

129. MAYS, TERRENCE

130. MAYS, GREGORY

131. MCGREW, HELEN

132. MCGREW, JOHNNIE

133. MILLS, MARION

134. MILLS, ROBRIAN

135. MINOR, GENTRY (SR.)

136. MINOR, HORACE

137. MINOR, HAZEL

138. MINOR, TRENT

139. MINOR, GENTRY (JR.)

140. MINOR, MARTHA

141. MINOR, SCHERAZADE

142. PAGE, FRANK

143. PICKENS, ALFRED

144. PICKENS, ROSHALETTE

145. PICKENS, CONSTANCE

146. RANDLE, DANIEL

147. RANDLE, KIMBERLY

148. RANDLE, GWEN

149. RANDLE, ANGELA

150. REDMOND, LILLIE

151. REDMOND, ALBERT

152. RICHARDSON, CYNTHIA

153. RICHARDSON, ROBERT

154. ROBERTS, RODERIC

155. ROBERTS, CREIGHTON

156. ROBERTS, DELORES

157. ROBERTS, CURTIS

158. ROBINSON, JEROME

159. ROGERS, XAVIER

160. ROSETTE, BERNISE

161. SHAW, DEBRA

162. SMITH, NORLEAN

163. STEWART, JOHN W.

164. STEWART, NORMA

165. STEWART, RODNEY

166. TAYLOR, MARY

167. THOMAS, ELLEN

168. THOMAS, ERICKA

169. THOMPSON, JERRY

170. THOMPSON, MARY E.

171. THOMPSON, ANITRIA

172. THOMPSON, MARGIE

173. WARD, CHRISTINA

174. WARD, CLARENCE (III)

175. WICKS, WANDA

176. WILCOX, CHARLES

177. WILCOX, CHARLES D.

178. WILCOX, LATOYA

179. WILCOX, JOAN

180. WILLIAMS, LOLA ANN

181. WILLIAMS, JAMES

182. WILSON, THERIS

183. WRIGHT, WILMA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bob Chambers v. John M. O'Quinn, Individually D/B/A O'Quinn & Laminack, and John M. O'Quinn, P.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bob-chambers-v-john-m-oquinn-individually-dba-oqui-texapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack