Opinion issued July 6, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-21-00177-CV
———————————
IN RE SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Schindler Elevator Corporation (“Schindler”), has filed an amended
petition for writ of mandamus1 asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in
1
Schindler first filed a petition for writ of mandamus on April 7, 2021. In its
April 7, 2021 mandamus petition, Schindler asserted that the trial court lacked
plenary power to hold a hearing on the “Motion to Confirm Jurisdiction” of real
parties in interest, Manuel Zepeda and Pricilda Luzania, individually and on behalf
of L.Z., D.Z., and E.Z., minor children, which was set to be heard by the trial court
on April 19, 2021. Schindler requested that this Court direct the trial court to cancel
the April 19, 2021 hearing and to further “refrain from adjudicating” the motion to
confirm jurisdiction. In connection with its mandamus petition, Schindler filed an
emergency motion for relief, requesting that we stay the April 19, 2021 hearing
pending resolution of the mandamus petition. On April 12, 2021, we issued an order
denying Schindler’s emergency motion for relief. See V.I.P. Royal Palace v. Hobby
connection with its April 29, 2021 order on the “Motion to Confirm Jurisdiction”
filed by real parties in interest, Manuel Zepeda and Pricilda Luzania, individually
and on behalf of L.Z., D.Z., and E.Z., minor children. Pursuant to its April 29, 2021
order, the trial court determined that it retained jurisdiction over the case, despite the
entry of a “Final Judgment” on November 18, 2020.2
We deny Schindler’s petition for writ of mandamus.3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Guerra, and Farris.
Event Center LLC, No. 01-18-00621-CV, 2020 WL 3579563, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] July 2, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“[C]ourts always have
jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction.” (internal quotations omitted)). Our
April 12, 2021 order further directed the parties to provide the Court with a status
update after the trial court’s April 19, 2021 hearing. On April 29, 2021, the parties
filed a joint status update, advising the Court that the trial court confirmed that it
had retained jurisdiction over the case. Schindler subsequently requested leave to
file an amended petition for writ of mandamus, which this Court granted.
2
The underlying case is Manuel Zepeda and Pricilda Luzania, Individually and on
Behalf of L.Z., D.Z., and E.Z., Minor Children v. Boxer Property Management
Corp., Grupo Zocalo Management, LLC, Grupo Zocalo, L.P., Town Center Mall,
L.P., Town Center Property, LLC, and Schindler Elevator Corporation, Cause No.
2018-56368, in the 129th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable
Michael Gomez presiding.
3
While we have concluded that the trial court’s November 18, 2020 “Final
Judgment” does not constitute a “final” order, we caution parties that our conclusion
is specific to the facts and circumstances of this mandamus petition, underlying
litigation, and the specific language of the trial court’s November 18, 2020 “Final
Judgment.” We further caution parties who are engaging in settlement negotiations
with some, but not all, parties to discharge or dispose of some, but not all, claims or
causes of action, to use “clear and unequivocal” language in any order and judgment
so as to leave no doubt as to what parties, claims, and causes of action are being
dismissed, discharged, or otherwise disposed of pursuant to that order or judgment.
See In re M & O Homebuilders, Inc., 516 S.W.3d 101, 106 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding).
2