David H. Arrington Oil and Gas Operating, LLC Midland-Petro D.C. Partners, LLC Permian Deep Rock Drilling, LLC And David H. Arrington v. M. Scott Wilshusen

Citation: Not availableDocket: 11-19-00318-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 18, 2019; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On March 22, 2019, M. Scott Wilshusen initiated a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including David H. Arrington Oil & Gas Operating, LLC and others. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss some claims under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) on May 23, 2019. A hearing occurred on September 20, 2019, but no ruling was made at that time. In a subsequent letter dated September 27, 2019, the trial court indicated that the motion to dismiss would be granted for the fraud claim but denied for the conversion and conspiracy claims, instructing the defendants to prepare a formal order. It remains unclear if a formal order was submitted; however, the appellants reported that discussions occurred without a formal agreement before the deadline expired. 

On October 17, 2019, the appellants filed a notice of appeal regarding the September 27 letter. They acknowledged the trial court's directive for a proposed order and noted the possibility of amending the appeal to include any future orders. The TCPA had been amended effective September 1, 2019, but since the lawsuit was filed prior to this date, the original statute applies. Upon the appeal's docketing on October 22, 2019, the court informed the parties that the motion to dismiss was deemed denied by operation of law on October 21, 2019, due to the trial court's failure to rule within the prescribed timeframe. 

On December 9, 2019, the appellants responded to this notice, arguing that the September 27 letter constituted a ruling preventing the automatic denial of the motion. They contended that the lack of a formal written order meant that the appellate timeline was not initiated and asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal due to this absence of a signed order.

Appellants seek a determination on a jurisdictional issue to conserve judicial resources and prevent repetitive appeals. The court disagrees with Appellants' claim that the trial court made a definitive ruling on September 27; rather, it simply indicated how it might rule in the future. Previous cases established that a trial court's intention to render a judgment must be clearly stated, and the court's September 27 letter did not fulfill this requirement. Additionally, the letter instructed Appellants' counsel to draft an order, suggesting it was not meant to be the final ruling on the motion to dismiss. While acknowledging that Section 51.014(a)(12) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows appeals from interlocutory orders, the court clarifies that a written order was not necessary in this instance. The motion to dismiss was effectively denied by operation of law under Section 27.008(a) on October 21, 2019, granting the court jurisdiction to consider the interlocutory appeal. The panel includes Chief Justice Bailey, Justice Stretcher, and Senior Chief Justice Wright, with Justice Willson not participating.