HOUSE SB 453
RESEARCH Duncan
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/26/97 FILED IN
(Gallego)
1st COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
SUBJECT: Interlocutory appeals from certain jurisdictional rulings
12/3/2015 4:40:55 PM
COMMITTEE: Civil Practices— favorable, without amendment CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
VOTE: 6 ayes — Gray, Bosse, Dutton, Nixon, Roman, Zbranek
0 nays
3 absent — Hubert, Alvarado, Goodman
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 2 — 31-0
WITNESSES: For— George Christian, Texas Association of Defense Counsel; Bill Tryon
Texas Civil Justice League
Against — None
On — Carey Smith, Attorney General’s Office
BACKGROUND In order for a court to have jurisdiction over a defendant, the court must
establish personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Personal
jurisdiction involves a question of residency whether the defendant’s due
process rights would be violated by being sued in the court because the
defendant has no contacts with the jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction
refers to the court’s ability to hear the case involved based on the type of
case and the amount in controversy.
Objections to personal jurisdiction are made by filing a special appearance
under Rule 120a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. If the defendant can
prove that the court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant,
the suit cannot proceed. A special appearance motion must be the first
response to a plaintifrs pleadings, and the ruling on a special appearance
must be the first thing a court decides in a case.
Objections to the subject matter jurisdiction are made by filing a plea to the
jurisdiction. Such a plea can be made at any time during the conduct of the
suit and may be raised for the first time on appeal. A finding of lack of
-1-
. EXHIBITA
SB 453
House Research Organization
page 2
subject matter jurisdiction is a fundamental issue and dismisses the case
immediately if the court lacks such jurisdiction.
If a special appearance motion or plea to the jurisdiction is denied by a
court, the ruling is not subject to immediate appeal. The issue of the court’s
denial may be raised on appeal, and if an appellate court finds the trial court
ruled in error, the case is dismissed. A party denied a special appearance or
plea to the jurisdiction may request a writ of mandamus from an appellate
court. The standard for granting a writ of mandamus under Rule 121 of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure is that the remedy of an appeal would
not be adequate under the circumstances.
The Texas Supreme Court had ruled that the remedy available upon appeal
for denial of a special appearance is adequate, and mandamus, therefore,
should not apply, Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, $76 $.W.2d 304,
(Tex. 1994). But recently the court issued a writ of mandamus for the denial
of a special appearance motion, CR$ Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.
1996).
DIGEST: SB 453 would allow an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a special
appearance motion by a defendant or the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction
made by a governmental entity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. It would
also clarify that an interlocutory appeal would have the effect of staying the
commencement of a trial pending resolution of the appeal.
SB 453 would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds record
vote of the membership of each house.
SUPPORTERS Determinations of personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction are at
SAY: the heart of a court’s ability to hear a case. If the court does not have proper
jurisdiction over a defendant, the case should not be allowed to proceed.
Unfortunately, there is currently no procedure for appealing the decision of
the trial court on these important issues until after a judgment is rendered.
Until recently, the Texas Supreme Court had held that the remedy of an
appeal was an adequate remedy to appeal such decisions. However,
incorrect rulings on such decisions needlessly waste the time of the courts
and can cost litigants hundreds of thousands of dollars as they defend cases
which should have been dismissed. SB 453 would establish a procedure for
-2-
SB 453
House Research Organization
page 3
an interlocutory appeal, allowing these decisions to be made definitively
early on in the case, saving the court’s time and the litigant’s money.
However, to avoid overloading the appellate courts with having to rule on
routine motions, the bill would limit subject matter jurisdiction interlocutory
appeals to cases involving government entities sued under the Tort Claims
Act.
The denial of a plea to the jurisdiction is less harmful to the defendant than a
denial of a special appearance because if a plea to the jurisdiction is granted,
unless the statute of limitations period has run, the plaintiff can simply re
file the case in a court of proper jurisdiction. Granting a special appearance,
on the other hand, means that no court in the state can exercise jurisdiction
over the defendant. SB 453 would allow a governmental entity’s denial of a
plea to the jurisdiction to be taken up on an interlocutory appeal because
such entities would be wasting taxpayer money defending a suit in which
the court lacked jurisdiction.
SB 453 would not lengthen the trial process or be an unnecessary delay in
the commencement of a suit. The determination of jurisdiction is a
constitutional issue and should be given the full attention it deserves. It is so
central to the case that it should be dispositively determined before a trial
proceeds. Interlocutory appeals are usually decided quickly by appellate
courts. Appeals concerning jurisdictional issues are almost always
determined on motions or briefs accompanied by affidavits; no testimony is
usually allowed. While trial may not proceed while an interlocutory appeal
is pending, there would be no prohibition in the statute against continuing
discovery.
OPPONENTS SB 453 would allow defendants who had a questionable claim of personal
SAY: or subject matter jurisdiction to delay the case while that issue is taken up on
appeal. While it is true that now interlocutory appeals are handled in a
timely manner, if even 10 percent of the defendants sued exercised this
option, it would bring the appellate system to a grinding halt. Because a
special appearance must be the first motion filed by a defendant, it would
require the plaintiff to go to court immediately after filing suit to defend that
plaintiffs right to continue the suit. Such a motion would have to be tried
before the defendant even submitted an answer to any discovery, and any
discovery to be done would also be halted pending the determination of the
-3-
SB 453
House Research Organization
page 4
appeal. SB 453 would be used as a tactic by defendants to delay a plaintiffs
suit and force a plaintiff to run up increased legal expenses. Since the
defendant in these cases would be governmental entities with resources
superior to many plaintiffs, the tactic would just give these entities an even
greater advantage than they already possess.
The Supreme Court and other courts of appeals are showing increased
willingness to grant writs of mandamus on a denial of a special appearance
and plea to the jurisdiction. As the courts are easing such restrictions, now
is not the time to open up the floodgates and allow all denials of such
motions to be appealed. The procedure for a writ of mandamus protects
those whose clearly legitimate claims were denied. Additionally, appeals
still remain a viable means of addressing such issues.
NOTES: HB 1425 by Dunnam, which passed the House on May 10 but was not
reported out of the Senate Jurisprudence Committee, would have removed
the right to file an interlocutory appeal on determinations made relating to
the Texas Arbitration Act.
-4-