BOM Watch #4
Trial court jurisdiction, qui tam actions, and more.
Herewith the fourth installment of BOM Watch. The Court appears interested in issues concerning the power of trial courts, qui tam actions, pension plans, and more.
25-0008, In re C.S. Jr. and Z.S.. The trial court terminated Tierra Watkins’ parental rights. Watkins argues that (1) the trial court lost jurisdiction after failing to rule by the statutory dismissal deadline, (2) the trial court’s oral order was defective because it was not made in the presence of a court reporter, and (3) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to justify terminating her parental rights.
24-0489, City of Pasadena v. Clifton. Two justices have expressed skepticism of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Is this the case to scrap it? Also, what sort of conduct constitutes “opposition” to discrimination necessary to support a retaliation claim under the Texas Commission for Human Rights Act?
24-0533, Quadvest, LP. v. San Jacinto River Authority. The Attorney General’s “validation” of a public bond makes that bond, by statute, “incontestable.” Does that mean parties to bond-related contracts have been stripped of their affirmative defenses for breaches of those contracts?
24-1062, In re Dr. Robert Tafel, et al. Do qui tam claims survive the death of the relator if the government has not intervened? That’s the headline legal issue that the petitioner seeks clarity from the high Court on. Petitioner also argues that mandamus relief is proper because (2) the TMFPA’s first-to-file and public-disclosure bars mandate dismissal and (3) this action should be abated because the court presiding over an earlier-filed case has dominant jurisdiction.
24-1049, Diamond Hydraulics, Inc. v. GAC Equipment, LLC. The Defendant’s expert moved to Ohio and informed his client that he would be unable to testify. Defendants secured another expert to offer opinions on the same issues. The trial court prevented him from testifying, finding that the late disclosure prejudiced Plaintiffs. Defendants argued that more is required to prevent a party from presenting evidence critical to their case.
24-0578, Liberty Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. AIL Investment, LP. Is the right of first refusal triggered only by a bona fide offer made in an arm's-length negotiation that actually changes control over the property? If so, does that mean the right of first refusal was not triggered by this landowner’s decision to sell property to its subsidiary for a below-market price for liability-limitation purposes?
24-0605, Dallas Police Retired Officers Association v. Dallas Police and Fire Pension System. Does the substitution of a guaranteed 4% cost-of-living adjustment for a variable 0-4% cost-of-living adjustment to the pensions plans of retired police officers and firefighters run afoul of the the Texas Constitution’s prohibition of any retroactive reduction or impairment of retirement benefits? Over a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, a panel on the Fifth Court of Appeals said no because the change was “prospective.”
24-0833, City of Houston v. Harris. While on his way to work (coming-and-going rule), a City of Houston official rear-ended the plaintiff while driving a City-owned vehicle. The City, apparently in error, admitted that the employee was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Is that allegedly-erroneous-but-since-amended admission enough to create a fact issue precluding summary judgment?
24-0881, In re K.N., K.L., K.L., and K.L. For the first time in her petition for review, Mother challenges in this parental-termination case the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction because, she argues, the children did not reside in Texas at the time DFPS initiated termination proceedings. What now?
24-0892, Office of Attorney General v. PFLAG, Inc. In this direct appeal, one of the questions presented is whether there has been a final, appealable judgment on the OAG’s underlying civil investigative demand to PFLAG’s CEO concerning his verified petition in State v. Loe.
24-0919, Tabakman v. Tabakman. In this appeal from a default divorce judgment, Wife argues that she was never properly served with service. Under Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, was her failure to respond based on a lack of notice or conscious indifference?
24-0980, In re Jones. Can a trial court sign an order “correcting” its prior dismissal order and “reinstate” claims after its plenary power has expired?