In re McBride Operating, LLC

No. 12-22-00279-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler Dec. 7, 2022) (mem. op.) · Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth Court of Appeals District, Tyler · December 9, 2022 · No. No. 12-22-00279-CV

Summary

The Texas Twelfth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief to McBride Operating, LLC, challenging the denial of its Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a motion to dismiss. The court addressed the timeliness and scope of the motion and concluded that the real parties in interest’s claims for injunctive relief and damages under the Texas Natural Resources Code were unripe because McBride had not obtained a permit to construct or operate the proposed waste-disposal facility. The opinion also discusses the requirements for mandamus relief and the availability of pre-injury injunctive relief.

Holdings

  1. McBride's Rule 91a motion was timely because the amended petition was the first pleading containing the challenged Natural Resources Code claim, and the motion was filed within sixty days after service of that petition. The motion also sufficiently challenged the collective viability of the plaintiffs' remaining claims even though it did not expressly name the Natural Resources Code.
  2. The plaintiffs' claims were not ripe because they depended on contingent future events—McBride obtaining a permit and then constructing and operating the proposed waste disposal facility—and the plaintiffs had not alleged a concrete injury or actual interference that had already occurred.
  3. Mandamus relief was appropriate because the trial court clearly abused its discretion by denying the Rule 91a motion and motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, and McBride lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether mandamus relief was appropriate from the denial of McBride's Rule 91a motion to dismiss and motion to dissolve the temporary injunction.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and statutory relief were unripe because they depended on McBride obtaining a permit and undertaking future construction and operation of the proposed waste disposal facility.
  3. Whether McBride's Rule 91a motion was timely and sufficiently identified the claims challenged under Rule 91a.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (17)

  • In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Fitzgerald, 429 S.W.3d 886, 891 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014, orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Farmers Tex. Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., 621 S.W.3d 261, 266 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • Malik v. Geico Advantage Ins. Co., Inc., No. 01-19-00489-CV, 2021 WL 1414275, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 15, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.)(followed)
  • Koenig v. Blaylock, 497 S.W.3d 595, 599 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016, pet. denied)(followed)
  • Walker v. Owens, 492 S.W.3d 787, 790-91 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.)(followed)
  • Cooper v. Trent, 551 S.W.3d 325, 331 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied)(followed)
  • Eagle Oil & Gas Co. v. TRO-X, LP, 619 S.W.3d 699, 706 (Tex. 2021)(followed)
  • Waco Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 851-52 (Tex. 2000)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…