Candice Schwagner v. Carol Anne Manley, David Peterson, Silverado Senior Living, Inc., D/B/A Silverado Living Center-Sugar Land Sugar Land

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 9, 2015
• Docket: 01-15-00158-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 01-15-00158-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/9/2015 10:01:10 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

CAUSE NO. 1-15-00158-CV ______________________________________________ FILED IN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT 1st COURT OF OF APPEALS TEXAS HOUSTON, TEXAS AT HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/9/2015 10:01:10 AM ______________________________________________ CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk CANDICE SCHWAGER, Pro Se Appellant

V.

CAROL ANNE MANLEY, DAVID PETERSON, SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING, INC. D/B/A SILVERADO LIVING CENTER-SUGAR LAND Appellees ______________________________________________

APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION ______________________________________________ C. Henry Kollenberg State Bar No. 11667800 kollenberg@craincaton.com Sarah Patel Pacheco State Bar No. 00788164 pacheco-efile@craincaton.com Kathleen Tanner Beduze State Bar No. 24052205 beduze-efile@craincaton.com Crain, Caton & James, P.C. 1401 McKinney St., Suite 1700 Houston, Texas 77010 (713) 658-2323 (Telephone) (713) 658-1921 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

070200/000001 376 - 1423403v1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ I

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ II

OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................1

ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY ..............................................................................2

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................7

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE ....................................................................7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..............................................................................8

I 070200/000001 376 - 1423403v1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582 (Tex. 2012).......................2

Jones v. Louis Vuitton Houston Galleria, 01-14-00403-CV, 2014 WL 2593442 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2014) ............................................... 4, 8

Riggs v. Perlman, 01-13-00974-CV, 2014 WL 2627841 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 12, 2014) ...............................................................................................4

Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352 (Tex. 1998) ...........................................................2

Statutes

TEX. CIV. P & REM. CODE, §74.351(a) ........................................................................4

TEX. CIV. P. & REM. CODE, CHAPTER 10 ....................................................................5

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, §51.014 ................................................................ 2, 3

Rules

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)................................................................................................5

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4. ...................................................................................................5

TEX. R. CIV. P., Rule 91(a)..................................................................................... 3, 4

Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.7 .....................................5

II 070200/000001 376 - 1423403v1 OVERVIEW

1. On February 9, 2015, Candice Schwager (“Appellant Schwager”), pro

se, filed a Notice of Appeal1 in Cause No. 1-15-00157-CV in which she complains

of five interlocutory orders entered by Probate Court One (1) of Harris County,

Texas. These orders are as follows:

a. Order granting Silverado Senior Living, Inc. d/b/a Silverado Senior Living – Sugar Land's (“Silverado”) Rule 91a motion to dismiss;

b. Order denying motion to reconsider 91a motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions, signed on January 9, 2015;

c. Order granting Silverado's first amended plea to the jurisdiction, signed on January 9, 2015;

d. Order granting Sanctions against Candice Schwager under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 10 for $5000.00 signed November 10, 2014, reconsideration denied January 9, 2015; and

e. Order granting Sanctions against Candice Schwager under Rule 3.7 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct for $10,000, dated November 10, 2014, reconsideration denied January 9, 2015.

2. This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because a final

judgment has not been entered by the Honorable Judge Loyd Wright, presiding

judge of Harris County Probate Court One (1), a statutory probate court.

3. Accordingly, Appellant Schwager’s appeal should be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction.

1 070200/000001 376 - 1423403v1 ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY

4. Texas appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments;

interlocutory orders are appealable only if specified by statute. See Bison Bldg.

Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); Stary v. DeBord, 967

S.W.2d 352, 352-353 (Tex. 1998). The orders Appellant Schwager appeals in the

instant matter are not a final judgment, and no statute allows for an interlocutory

appeal in this case. Id.

5. Section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code provides

as follows:

A person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, statutory probate court, or county court that: (1) appoints a receiver or trustee; (2) overrules a motion to vacate an order that appoints a receiver or trustee; (3) certifies or refuses to certify a class in a suit brought under Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; (4) grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction as provided by Chapter 65; (5) denies a motion for summary judgment that is based on an assertion of immunity by an individual who is an officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision of the state; (6) denies a motion for summary judgment that is based in whole or in part upon a claim against or defense by a member of the electronic or print media, acting in such

1 Mackey Glen Peterson, Tonya Peterson, Don Leslie Peterson, Carol Peterson, and Lonny Peterson, Appellant Schwager’s clients in trial court Cause No. 427,208-401, filed a First Amended Notice of Appeal in Cause No. 01-15-00157-CVseeking relief on identical grounds.

2 070200/000001 376 - 1423403v1 capacity, or a person whose communication appears in or is published by the electronic or print media, arising under the free speech or free press clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Article I, Section 8, of the Texas Constitution, or Chapter 73; (7) grants or denies the special appearance of a defendant under Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, except in a suit brought under the Family Code; (8) grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit as that term is defined in Section 101.001; (9) denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b), except that an appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension under Section 74.351; (10) grants relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(1); (11) denies a motion to dismiss filed under Section 90.007; (12) denies a motion for summary judgment filed by an electric utility regarding liability in a suit subject to Section 75.0022; or (13) denies a motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003.

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §51.014.

6. In Jones v. Louis Vuitton Houston Galleria, a similar case involving, in

part, an interlocutory order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 91(a) of the Texas Rules of

Civil Procedure, this Court held that:

Texas appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments, and interlocutory orders are only appealable if specified by statute. An order that disposes of claims against one or some of the defendants in a suit does not render a judgment final. The order appealed from here is not a final judgment because the suit is still pending in Brazoria County and only Mercedes Benz has been dismissed as defendant. The appellant has failed to point to any statutory authority that would allow for an interlocutory appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

3 070200/000001 376 - 1423403v1 Jones v. Louis Vuitton Houston Galleria, 01-14-00403-CV, 2014 WL 2593442, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2014) (internal citations omitted)

(emphasis added).

7. In Riggs v. Perlman, this Court considered the appeal of an “Order of

Dismissal with Prejudice” pursuant to Section74.351(a) of the Texas Civil Practice

& Remedies Code, which dismissed only Appellant Riggs’ causes of action against

Appellee Perlman, did not dispose of all parties and claims, and did not purport to

be a final judgment. Riggs v. Perlman, 01-13-00974-CV, 2014 WL 2627841, at *1

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], June 12, 2014). Finding no evidence of a

severance or final judgment in the record, this Court ruled that the Order of

Dismissal with Prejudice was an interlocutory order and, therefore, not appealable.

See id.

8. As in Jones and Riggs, the order granting Silverado’s Rule 91(a)

Motion to Dismiss is not a final judgment because the suit is still pending in the

statutory probate Court Number One in Harris County, Texas and only Silverado

has been dismissed as a defendant. Appellant Schwager’s claims against Silverado

have not been severed and no final judgment has been rendered. Appellant

Schwager has failed to point to any statutory authority that would allow an

interlocutory appeal of the order granting Silverado’s Rule 91(a) Motion to Dismiss

4 070200/000001 376 - 1423403v1 or Appellant Schwager’s Motion to Reconsider 91a Motion to Dismiss and Motion

for Sanctions, signed on January 9, 2015.

9. Likewise, Appellant Schwager points to no statutory authority that

would allow an interlocutory appeal of the January 9, 2015 order granting

Silverado’s First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction or the November 10, 2014 orders

assessing monetary sanctions against Appellant Schwager, personally, for

groundless and bad faith pleading violation of Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil

Practice & Remedies Code and for violation of Rule 3.7 of the Texas Disciplinary

Rules of Professional Conduct.

10. Accordingly, this Court should dismiss this appeal for lack of

jurisdiction and the cost of appeal should be taxed against Appellant Schwager. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4.

5 070200/000001 376 - 1423403v1 Respectfully submitted,

CRAIN, CATON & JAMES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

By: /s/ Sarah Patel Pacheco C. Henry Kollenberg State Bar No. 1166780 ckollenberg@craincaton.com Sarah Patel Pacheco State Bar No. 00788164 pacheco-efile@craincaton.com Kathleen Tanner Beduze State Bar No. 24052205 beduze-efile@craincaton.com 1401 McKinney St, Suite 1700 Houston, Texas 77010 (713) 658-2323 (Telephone) (713) 658-1921 (Facsimile)

Attorneys for Appellees Carol Manley and David Peterson

6 070200/000001 376 - 1423403v1 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This document contains 1102 words. This word count was created by highlighting portions of the document and performing a word count on such highlighted portions. This word count does not include words excluded from the count by Rule 9.4(i)(1), such as caption, identity of parties and counsel, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of issues presented, signature, certificate of service, or certificate of compliance.

/s/Kathleen Tanner Beduze KATHLEEN TANNER BEDUZE

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that I attempted to confer with Candice Schwager, pro se, prior to filing this motion. Ms. Schwager indicated that she would dismiss her appeal once Phil Ross filed an unknown document. As of filing, Ms. Schwager had not dismissed her appeal, so presumably Ms. Schwager is opposed to this motion.

/s/ Kathleen Tanner Beduze

7 070200/000001 376 - 1423403v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded to:

Philip M. Ross Jill Young 1006 Holbrook Road Macintyre, McCulloch, Stanfield, San Antonio, TX 78218 Young, LLP 2900 Weslayan, Suite 150 Houston, Texas 77027

Candice Schwager Russ Jones 1417 Ramada Drive Underwood, Jones, Scherrer & Malouf, Houston, Texas 77062 PLLC 5177 Richmond Avenue, Suite 505 Houston, Texas 77056

Josh Davis Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP Weslayan Tower, Suite 1400 24 Greenway Plaza Houston, Texas 77046

via facsimile, e-file and/or electronic delivery, by agreement, on the 9th day of March, 2015.

/s/ Kathleen Tanner Beduze KATHLEEN TANNER BEDUZE

8 070200/000001 376 - 1423403v1