Lattin v. Barrett

Court of Appeals of Texas

Lattin v. Barrett

127 S.W.3d 276, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 177, 2003 WL 23138203

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 5, 2004

Docket10-03-287-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 S.W.3d 276 (Lattin v. Barrett) 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

Lattin v. Barrett, 127 S.W.3d 276, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 177, 2003 WL 23138203 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING STAY

Appellants have filed a joint motion to stay all further proceedings in the underlying suit, including discovery, pending the resolution of this interlocutory appeal. Appellees oppose the request only insofar as it seeks to stay discovery with regard to a defendant in the underlying proceeding which is not a party to this appeal. We will grant Appellants’ motion.

Appellees filed suit against Appellants and another defendant, CNM Network, Inc., (“CNM”) for violations of federal and state securities laws, statutory fraud, and common law fraud. Appellants are residents of California. They filed a special appearance, which the trial court denied. They appeal that denial. See Tex. Crv. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7) (Vernon Supp.2003).

*277 By statute, the trial of the underlying suit is stayed pending resolution of this appeal. Id. § 51.014(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003). Appellants request that discovery be suspended as to all defendants, including CNM, because “the case cannot effectively proceed as to one defendant but not others.” Appellees respond that a stay is not warranted as to CNM because discovery served on CNM will impose no undue burden or expense on Appellants and because a stay of discovery as to CNM is unnecessary to preserve Appellants’ rights.

We have previously expressed concern for an appellant challenging the denial of a special appearance having to incur the expense and inconvenience of discovery pending resolution of the appeal of a special appearance. See Lacefield v. Elec. Fin. Group, Inc., 21 S.W.3d 799, 800 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, order). It is therefore ordered that all discovery at the trial court level be and it is hereby stayed pending final determination of the appeal from the denial of the special appearance or further order of this Court.

/s/ Bill Vance

Bill Vance, Justice

/s/ George Allen

George Allen, District Judge

(Sitting by Assignment)

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

ORDER GRANTING STAY

Appellants have filed a joint motion to stay all further proceedings in the underlying suit, including discovery, pending the resolution of this interlocutory appeal. Appellees oppose the request only insofar as it seeks to stay discovery with regard to a defendant in the underlying proceeding which is not a party to this appeal. We will grant Appellants’ motion.

Appellees filed suit against Appellants and another defendant, CNM Network, Inc., (“CNM”) for violations of federal and state securities laws, statutory fraud, and common law fraud. Appellants are residents of California. They filed a special appearance, which the trial court denied. They appeal that denial. See Tex. Crv. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7) (Vernon Supp.2003).

*277 By statute, the trial of the underlying suit is stayed pending resolution of this appeal. Id. § 51.014(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003). Appellants request that discovery be suspended as to all defendants, including CNM, because “the case cannot effectively proceed as to one defendant but not others.” Appellees respond that a stay is not warranted as to CNM because discovery served on CNM will impose no undue burden or expense on Appellants and because a stay of discovery as to CNM is unnecessary to preserve Appellants’ rights.

We have previously expressed concern for an appellant challenging the denial of a special appearance having to incur the expense and inconvenience of discovery pending resolution of the appeal of a special appearance. See Lacefield v. Elec. Fin. Group, Inc., 21 S.W.3d 799, 800 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, order). It is therefore ordered that all discovery at the trial court level be and it is hereby stayed pending final determination of the appeal from the denial of the special appearance or further order of this Court.

/s/ Bill Vance

Bill Vance, Justice

/s/ George Allen

George Allen, District Judge

(Sitting by Assignment)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.W.3d 276, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 177, 2003 WL 23138203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lattin-v-barrett-texapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack