In re Scott Mitchell Obeginski

Summary

The Ninth Court of Appeals of Texas denied Scott Mitchell Obeginski’s petition for writ of mandamus challenging a sanctions order requiring him to attach highlighted copies of legal authorities cited in filings. The court held that the trial court had authority to impose the sanction, retained plenary power when it issued the order, and had not unconstitutionally restricted Obeginski’s access to the courts.

Holdings

1. The trial court possessed the authority to sanction Obeginski for citing fictitious legal authority in filings made in the underlying case because Obeginski had appeared and the court had personal jurisdiction over him and inherent power to sanction improper conduct.
2. The directive requiring Obeginski to attach highlighted copies of the authorities he cited was sufficiently related to his repeated citation of fictitious cases and was not shown to be an excessive sanction.
3. The sanctions order was not void because the trial court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, had authority to enter the order, and acted while it retained plenary power.
4. Obeginski did not establish that the directive unconstitutionally restricted his access to the courts.
5. Mandamus relief was unavailable because Obeginski failed to show a clear abuse of discretion and an inadequate remedy by appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court had authority to sanction Obeginski for citing fictional legal authority.
2. Whether the trial court had authority to require Obeginski to attach highlighted copies of cited legal authorities to filings made in any court.
3. Whether the sanctions order was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction or had lost plenary power.
4. Whether the challenged directive unconstitutionally restricted Obeginski's access to the courts.
5. Whether Obeginski was entitled to mandamus relief.

Disposition

writ_denied