Phyllis J. Morgan v. Hani Hanna and Naglaa Ghobriel

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 28, 2023
• Docket: 01-23-00295-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 28, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00295-CV ——————————— PHYLLIS J. MORGAN, Appellant V. HANI HANNA AND NAGLAA GHOBRIEL, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. CV-0087282

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed on January 18, 2023. On April 21,

2023, this Court ordered the parties to mediation and ordered that mediation be

completed within 45 days. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 154.021,

154.022(a), 154.023. No party timely objected to mediation. See id. § 154.022(b). And no party notified the Court that mediation had been conducted and completed

by the prescribed deadline.

Accordingly, on August 24, 2023, we issued a second order abating the appeal

and again ordering the parties to proceed to mediation—with mediation to be

completed by October 13, 2023. Because the parties failed to object to our initial

mediation order, we noted that any objection to our second order would be untimely.

The parties failed to comply with our second order.

Instead, on October 24, appellees Hani Hanna and Naglaa Ghobriel moved to

dismiss appellant Phyllis J. Morgan’s appeal for failure to comply with our previous

two orders. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). According to appellees, they attempted to

comply with the Court’s mediation orders—but received no cooperation from

appellant. Appellant then filed a response generally blaming appellees for the

parties’ failure to comply with this Court’s two mediation orders—but appellant

provided no supporting explanation for her assertion.

On November 21, 2023, we issued a third order. This time we instructed both

parties to file a verified response with the Court—by 5:00 p.m. on Monday,

November 27, 2023—detailing (1) why the Court’s orders of April 21, 2023 and

August 24, 2023 had not been complied with and (2) why the Court should not

consider imposing appropriate sanctions against the party or parties that have failed

2 to comply with our orders. We notified the parties that any failure to comply with

this order may subject that party to appropriate sanctions.

Appellees timely complied with our November 21 order. They provided

verified facts, responsive to our inquiries, demonstrating that appellant’s lack of

cooperation and unwillingness to comply with our two mediation orders is the root

of the issue here.

Appellant, on the other hand, did not timely comply with our third order.

Instead, appellant filed a late response—which was not properly verified and did not

include the information requested by the Court.

Consequently, on December 5, 2023, we issued a fourth order.

In the fourth order, we observed that appellant not only failed to comply with

our November 21 order, but also failed to comply with our two preceding orders.

We also explained “[t]here can be no doubt that parties are required to comply with

this Court’s orders” and that “this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce its

orders—which it must do. See In re Gabbai, 968 S.W.2d 929, 931 (Tex. 1998); see

also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).”

Accordingly, our December 5 order required appellant to file a written notice

with the Court, within ten days of that order (by December 15, 2023), “stating that

appellant will immediately comply with our April 21, 2023 and August 24, 2023

3 mediation orders and will participate in mediation with appellees in good faith, with

such mediation to be completed no later than January 12, 2024.”

We also stated in the December 5 order that if the Court did not receive this

written notice from appellant within ten days of the date of that order (by December

15), her appeal will be subject to dismissal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.3(c). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant did not comply with this

Court’s order for the fourth consecutive time.1

Accordingly, the Court reinstates this case to the Court’s active docket and

dismisses the appeal for failure to comply with the Court’s orders.2 Id. We dismiss

all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Landau and Rivas-Molloy.

1 Instead, appellant filed a motion for en banc reconsideration of the December 5, 2023 order. That motion was denied on December 14, 2023 by a unanimous en banc court. 2 See Muery v. Dean & Dean Enters., Inc., No. 14-02-00798-CV, 2002 WL 31319532, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 17, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c) for failure to comply with mediation order, and noting appellant’s response to court’s notice of intent to dismiss did not demonstrate reasonable explanation for failure to comply); Holley v. LeFebvre, No. 14-99-0709-CV, 2000 WL 4930, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 6, 2000, no pet.) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal pursuant to Rule 42.3(c) for failure to comply with court’s mediation order). 4