Robert Edward Battaile v. Texas Elections Division; Hon. Jane Nelson; Texas Secretary of State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided September 17, 2025·No. 15-25-00142-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00142-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/17/2025 2:12 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK CAUSE NO. 15-25-00142-CV FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/17/2025 2:12:33 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS Clerk

ROBERT EDWARD BATTAILE, Appellant

TEXAS ELECTIONS DIVISION; HON. JANE NELSON; TEXAS SECRETARY

OF STATE, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 459th District Court,

Travis County, Texas ~ Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-25-000719

APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO JURISDICTIONAL INQUIRY

Introduction

On September 15, 2025, the Clerk of this Court requested that Appellant explain

(1) how jurisdiction exists over trial court orders signed May 27, 2025, and June

10, 2025, and (2) how Appellant’s June 20, 2025 notice of appeal is timely as to

the May 27 orders.

Jurisdiction is proper here for four reasons: (a) multiple governmental pleas to the

jurisdiction were granted, which are independently appealable under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(8); (b) several defendants were dismissed with

prejudice, constituting final adjudications as to them; (c) the June 20 notice of

appeal was timely as to the June 10 orders and within TRAP 26.3’s grace period

for the May 27 orders, especially given defective service under Rule 306a; and (d)

the fractured and incomplete record—including missing transcripts, improper

notice, lack of adequate time for review with six different judges across six

hearings—precludes any finding of finality under Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001).

I. Jurisdiction Exists Under § 51.014(a)(8): Governmental Pleas to the

Jurisdiction Were Granted

Texas law is explicit:

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(8):

“A person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court

at law, or county court that … (8) grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a

governmental unit as that term is defined in Section 101.001.”

On May 27, 2025, the trial court granted pleas to the jurisdiction filed by Hon.

Jane Nelson, Secretary of State of Texas, and Commissioner Jeffrey Travillion (Travis County). Both are “governmental units” under § 101.001(3). An order

granting such a plea is immediately appealable, even if other claims remain

pending.

This case arises from an Election Contest under Tex. Elec. Code § 231.009,

which by statute requires priority handling. The pleas to the jurisdiction granted to

the Secretary of State and to a County Commissioner cut directly against the

Legislature’s command for expedited review of election cases. For that reason

alone, this Court’s jurisdiction must be upheld.

II. Short List of Dismissals Clarifies Which Are Final and Which Are

Interlocutory

Texas Secretary of State (Hon. Jane Nelson) - Dismissed with Prejudice - May

27th - Plea to Jurisdiction - Final as to SOS; appealable under § 51.014(a)(8)

Travis County Commissioner, Jeffrey Travillion - Dismissed with Prejudice -

May 27th - Plea to Jurisdiction - Final as to Travillion; appealable under §

51.014(a)(8)

Legacy Performance Capital LLC - Dismissed WITHOUT Prejudice - June 10,

2025 -Motion to Dismiss - Constructive denial of injunction; appealable Other defendants (Monarch Ranch, HEB, MC Retail, etc.) - May - June 2025 -

Rule 91a dismissals - some final; some unresolved

III. The Legacy Performance Capital Order Implicates Cemetery Desecration

and Irreparable Harm

A. Context and police reports ignored

The June 10, 2025 order dismissed Appellant’s claims against Legacy

Performance Capital without prejudice. These claims concern development

adjacent to the historic 1906 Martin McVey Cemetery, deeded “for a cemetery

lot” in Travis County records.

Appellant twice filed police reports alleging cemetery desecration and misuse of

city funds and staff to clear a private developer’s lot. Both were ignored.

B. Irreparable harm requires injunctive relief

Cemetery desecration cannot be remedied by damages. Once gravesites are

disturbed, the harm is permanent. Texas courts consistently hold that destruction of

historic and cemetery property constitutes irreparable injury warranting

injunction. City of Dallas v. Stewart, 361 S.W.3d 562, 572 (Tex. 2012).

Dismissal without prejudice in this posture operates as a denial of injunctive relief and is appealable.

IV. Timeliness: Notice Filed Within Accelerated Deadline, Grace Period, and

Rule 306a

• June 10, 2025 order → Notice filed June 20, 2025 (10 days later) = timely

under TRAP 26.1(b).

• May 27, 2025 orders → Nominal deadline June 16, 2025; notice filed June

20 (4 days late) = within TRAP 26.3’s 15-day grace window. Verburgt v.

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 (Tex. 1997).

• Rule 306a delayed notice also applies. Notice of the May 27 orders was

defective, with filings re-sent May 21 “in an abundance of caution.”

Opposing counsel had already used Appellant’s correct email address but

reverted to an outdated one, demonstrating scienter.

Supplemental Note on Extension Motion

Appellant has also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief (filed Sept.

12, 2025), together with a proposed order. The request seeks a two-week

extension, citing (1) the voluminous clerk’s record, (2) preparation of related

filings concerning Manor Downs historic racetrack, (3) delays in receiving reporter’s records. Note that the “Online Briefcase” with four out of five hearing

transcripts was only fully available Aug. 18, despite the first hearing happened

May 13). Ironically, the July 3rd hearing was not recorded at all due to Plaintiff’s

absence caused by improper notice; and (4) the added burden of pro se status.

This motion remains pending but demonstrates diligence and good faith.

Jurisdiction should not be denied where Appellant has acted promptly, requested

extensions, and consistently preserved his rights.

V. July 3, 2025 Hearing: Dismissal Without Notice

One of the most prejudicial events was the July 3, 2025 hearing, which Appellant

did not attend due to lack of notice. He learned of it several days later from a visit

to the clerk’s office. By then, dismissals with prejudice and attorney’s fees had

already been entered.

This episode underscores both opposing counsel’s scienter—having used the

correct email address on other filings—and systemic service failures. The July 3

dismissal was the only order awarding attorney’s fees, and no transcript exists.

For a litigant who is bringing this cause against “courts of no record,” it is a cruel

irony to be bested by the same defect in district court. The absence of notice and a record renders the July 3 orders constitutionally defective. Heights Medical Center

v. Estate of E.H., 492 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1973).

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