Henry v. Cox
| Decision Date | 22 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01–15–00583–CV,01–15–00583–CV |
| Parties | The Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge of Galveston County, Appellant v. The Honorable Lonnie Cox, Judge of the 56th District Court of Galveston County, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Edward L. Friedman, Baker & Hostetler LLP, N. Terry Adams, Jr., Joseph M. Nixon, James E. "Trey" Trainor, III, Nicholas D. Stepp, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Appellant.
Mark W. Stevens, Galveston, TX, for Appellee.
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Brown.
In this interlocutory appeal,1 appellant, the Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge of Galveston County, challenges the district court's2 order granting appellee, the Honorable Lonnie Cox, Judge of the 56th District Court and Local Administrative Judge of Galveston County, a temporary injunction suspending the termination of the employment of Bonita Quiroga, the Galveston County Director of Judicial Administration, directing the reinstatement of her employment, and enjoining Henry and "his agents, servants, and representatives, and those acting in concert with him," from taking action against Quiroga, her department, and her staff In four issues, Henry contends that the "temporary injunction order has become moot on appeal," the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the temporary injunction, the district court "did not validly exercise its supervisory jurisdiction" in granting the temporary injunction, and the temporary injunction is otherwise invalid.
We affirm.
In his amended petition, Judge Cox alleges that in 2000, the judges of the Galveston County District Courts and County Courts at Law "selected" Quiroga as Director of Judicial Administration ("DJA") and the Galveston County Commissioners Court approved their selection. Although her DJA duties were "overwhelmingly judicial in nature," Quiroga also performed certain duties for the county judge and commissioners.
Fourteen years later, on July 24, 2014, Judge Henry, who had taken office in 2011, purported to unilaterally terminate Quiroga's employment as DJA. In the months that followed, certain Galveston County District Court Judges, County Court at Law Judges, and a Probate Court Judge (collectively, "the judges"),3 speaking through Judge Cox, the Local Administrative Judge, endeavored to reinstate Quiroga to her position. At Cox's request, the Office of Court Administration of the State of Texas ("OCA") sought an opinion in the matter from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas ("OAG").
In August 2014, Peri Bluemer, Chief Human Resources Officer for Galveston County, acting at Judge Henry's direction, publicly posted Quiroga's position to solicit applications, conducted telephone interviews with candidates, and began scheduling interviews with the three "finalists."
On September 24, 2014, the day that Bluemer had scheduled final interviews to begin, Judge Cox issued an order directing that Judge Henry and the commissioners cease searching for a replacement for Quiroga. Cox concluded that Henry's termination of Quiroga's employment as DJA was "void" because the judges, not Henry and the commissioners, had the authority to appoint and terminate the employment of court personnel; Henry's termination of Quiroga's employment and his proposed selection of a replacement violated the Separation of Powers Provision of the Texas Constitution4 and infringed on the inherent powers of the Galveston County Judiciary; and Henry's actions constituted an illegal attempt to influence the appointment of a person to a position authorized by the commissioners court for the department of another district, county or precinct officer in the county.5
Days later, Judge Henry filed in this Court a petition for a writ of mandamus, requesting that this Court vacate Judge Cox's order. After Henry notified the OAG of the filing of his mandamus petition, it declined to issue an opinion on the issue of Henry's purported termination of the employment of Quiroga. And after this Court denied Henry mandamus relief, he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Texas Supreme Court, which also denied him relief
Subsequently, OCA crafted a proposed compromise for the judges to submit to Judge Henry and the commissioners. Under the proposed compromise, two separate positions would be created: (1) "Director of Court Administration" ("DCA") and (2) a "public safety position." Judge Henry and the commissioners requested that the judges submit a supplemental proposal regarding the salary for the newly proposed DCA position. On May 12, 2015, the judges attended a "compromise meeting workshop," at which they submitted their recommendation that the newly proposed DCA position encompass certain duties and have an annual salary of no less than $85,000 and no more than $120,000.
On May 29, 2015, after Judge Henry and the commissioners had not acted, the judges issued an order, concluding that it was "in the best interest of the Court system and the citizens of Galveston County to reinstate the position of Justice Administrator," which was to be filled by Quiroga, effective June 8, 2015. And Judge Cox issued an order to "carry out the reinstatement of Quiroga," directing Henry to provide her with a key to her office, a personal computer with employee email access, and an office telephone. Cox further ordered that Henry direct "Human Resources to allow [Quiroga] to complete all paperwork necessary for her to be reinstated as a full time employee" and the "Treasurer to reinstate and pay [Quiroga]."
However, when Quiroga, accompanied by some of the judges and Galveston County Sheriff H. Trochessett, arrived at the Galveston County Justice Center on the morning of June 8, 2015, they found that the lock on Quiroga's office door had been changed. After the Sheriff used his own key to admit Quiroga to her office, she discovered that her personal computer and telephone had been removed.
The next day, Quiroga arrived at the Justice Center to find that, once again, the lock on her office door had been changed and she had been locked out. After Judge Cox arranged for her to work on her personal computer in an empty office space, Judge Henry scheduled a meeting with the commissioners court to discuss the "[a]uthority of county and [d]istrict [c]ourt judges to appoint administrative employees" and the filing of litigation against the judges and a judicial-conduct complaint against Cox.
Also on June 9, 2015, Judge Cox filed in the 405th District Court of Galveston County his original petition in the instant case, seeking injunctive relief. The district court subsequently granted a temporary restraining order, prohibiting Judge Henry and "all acting in concert with [him]" from taking any official action on the agenda posted for the special meeting of June 9, 2015. In response, Henry tabled matters in the commissioners court until June 13, 2015. And, at a June 13, 2015 "special meeting," Henry and the commissioners "authorized" a reduction in the salary for Quiroga's position from $113,000 to $63,695. Even though, as noted by Cox, Henry and the commissioners, by comparison, had previously authorized a salary of $65,000 for a candidate who had been appointed to perform just "one" of Quiroga's former duties.
In his amended petition, Cox sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief and a declaration that the "purported firing of [Quiroga] on July 24, 2014 was void and is void at the present time"; "subsequent purported changes to the salary scale and administrative organization of the Galveston County Department of Justice Administration" are "void"; and Quiroga's salary is "as of the date of final judgment the same rate ... as was applicable on July 23, 2014."
In making his request for a temporary injunction, Judge Cox asked the district court to preserve the "last, actual, peaceable noncontested status that preceded the controversy." He asserted that Judge Henry's actions were causing harm to the Galveston County district and county courts, and he argued that the harm is "imminent and ongoing" because Henry was continuing to "reassign" department employees. Cox further sought "to invoke statutory rights of non-interference"6 ; "enforcement of constitutional rights and powers under the inherent power of courts to demand and receive adequate funding, personnel, and facilities"7 ; and to "enforce the separation of powers" and "supervisory control" of district courts over Henry and the commissioners court.8 And he requested an order enjoining "Henry and all those acting in concert with him" from:
In his brief, filed in opposition to Judge Cox's request for a temporary injunction, Judge Henry contended that Cox was seeking, "by way of temporary injunction," the "very remedy (on many of the same grounds)" that Quiroga seeks "in her earlier filed lawsuit."9 He asserted that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waymon Scott Hartwell & HHH Farms, LLC v. Star
...the bond securing the temporary restraining order be continued as the bond for the temporary injunction. Henry v. Cox, 483 S.W.3d 119, 158–59 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015), rev'd on other grounds, No. 15-0993, 2017 WL 2200344 (Tex. May 19, 2007) (citing Ex parte Coffee, 160 Tex. 224,......
-
In re Abbott
...cases in support of this rule, United States v. Will , 449 U.S. 200, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980) and Henry v. Cox , 483 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015), rev'd , 520 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. 2017). But neither of these cases indicates that a judge has a personal, legally cogn......
-
Henry v. Sullivan
...from the outset”).11 Our sister court recently interpreted legislative immunity narrowly. See Henry v. Cox, 483 S.W.3d 119, 149–50 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 22, 2015, pet. pending). In that case, County Judge Mark Henry was sued by District Court Judge Lonnie Cox for Judge Henry's ......
- Yeh v. Chesloff