X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The relators, East Texas Medical Center Athens and East Texas Medical Center Regional Healthcare System (collectively “ETMC”), seek a writ of mandamus directing the Honorable James N. Parsons III, Judge of the 3rd Judicial District Court, Henderson County, to vacate his order denying ETMC’s motion to transfer venue. The underlying proceeding is a negligence action filed by real party in interest Sonja Bass, individually and as next friend of David Wayne Cornelius, an incapacitated individual. In its mandamus petition, ETMC alleges that 15, 8, 7, 5, and 2 days prior to the commencement of trial, “numerous highly prejudicial publications” occurred in the local media to which the potential jury pool was exposed. Because of these publications, ETMC sought a transfer of venue alleging it could not receive an impartial trial in Henderson County. The trial court denied ETMC’s motion, and this original proceeding followed. ETMC also filed a motion for immediate temporary relief. HOLDING:Denied. It is undisputed that ETMC filed the new affidavits before the trial court signed the order denying its motion. ETMC urges that the trial court had a duty to grant the motion once the new affidavits were filed. Thus, its argument continues, the trial court denied the motion in violation of a clear legal duty, which must be corrected by mandamus. The record does not reflect that ETMC reurged its motion after filing the new affidavits or made the trial court aware of the filing. However, ETMC asserted at oral argument in this proceeding and again in its post-submission brief that no such action was necessary. ETMC first points out that Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 257 and 258 do not include a presentment requirement. Absent a presentment requirement in the controlling procedural rules, ETMC contends, the new affidavits were properly before the trial court once they were filed. In support of its argument, ETMC cites Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. 1991). In Cecil, the supreme court concluded, based upon the express language of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52(d), which the predecessor to Texas Rule of Appeallate Procedure 33.1, that motions for new trial need not be “presented” to the trial court to preserve a complaint for appellate review. This exception can now be found in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(b) and applies only to motions for new trial and motions to modify judgment. The opinion in Cecil contains no language suggesting that its holding can be extended beyond the motions to which Rule 33.1(b) applies. Therefore, the court decides, Cecil is inapposite. ETMC next argues that “[s]ince the only issue raised and the only thing [ETMC] inquired about was the absence of a residency statement in the affidavits, it was pretty much a given that ETMC would be filing amended affidavits. Moreover, the trial court specifically rejected an attempt to close the evidence to prevent any such amended affidavits.” Additionally, ETMC states that the affidavits were filed “after the trial court expressly gave permission to do so while he held the motion to transfer under advisement.” Therefore, ETMC maintains that the trial court was charged with knowledge that the filing had in fact occurred, which, in turn, fulfilled any requirement that ETMC call the new affidavits to the trial court’s attention. Merely filing a document with the district clerk does not impute the clerk’s knowledge of the filing to the trial court. Therefore, the filing of a document with the court clerk does not in and of itself bring the matter to the attention of the court. The new affidavits were not in existence at the time the trial court gave ETMC permission to “file [their] stuff in the morning.” Thus, ETMC had the burden to secure new affidavits from at least three of the affiants and file them the next morning. Although ETMC argues that their filing the new affidavits was “a given,” the likelihood of the filing is not relevant here. If an actual filing is insufficient to bring a filed document to the court’s attention, it logically follows that knowledge of a potential, (or even a likely,) filing is also insufficient. Therefore, the trial court was not charged with notice of the actual filing. ETMC’s argument is without merit. OPINION:Devasto, J.; Worthen, C.J., Griffith and DeVasto, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.