In re Moore

Decision Date24 February 2021
Docket NumberNUMBER 13-21-00004-CV
PartiesIN RE J. MICHAEL MOORE
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator J. Michael Moore seeks to set aside an order transferring a case from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, to the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. The question presented in this original proceeding is whether the Hidalgo County Local Rules (Local Rules) allow a case to be transferred by agreement of the judges to a court previously found to be an "improper"court by virtue of forum shopping. We conclude that the Local Rules do not.

In summary, as will be discussed herein, an assigned judge concluded that real parties in interest Marco A. Cantu a/k/a Mark Cantu and Roxanne Cantu a/k/a Roxana Cantu (collectively Cantu) engaged in "forum shopping" and that the underlying case, filed in the 93rd District Court, and other cases filed by Cantu, were thus in improper courts under the Local Rules. Accordingly, the assigned judge transferred the underlying case and the other cases to the 92nd District Court as the court where Cantu's first-filed case had been randomly assigned. Thereafter, even though the assigned judge found that the 93rd District Court was an improper court because it had been obtained by forum shopping, the presiding judges of the 92nd and 93rd District Courts transferred the underlying case by agreement back to the 93rd District Court. We conclude that this transfer constituted an abuse of discretion, and we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus.

I. BACKGROUND

The background for this original proceeding can be found in a separate opinion issued by this Court. See In re Moore, No. 13-19-00551-CV, 2019 WL 6905837, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Dec. 19, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also In re Cantu, No. 13-20-00488-CV, 2020 WL 6811995, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Nov. 19, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying Cantu's petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to hold a hearing and rule on his "Second Amended Emergency Motion to Dismiss a/k/a Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion for a Ruling on Said Motion"); In re Cantu, No. 13-20-00443-CV, 2020 WL 6435771, at *1(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Oct. 30, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying Cantu's petition for writ of mandamus on this same issue without prejudice); Rodriguez v. Cantu, 581 S.W.3d 859, 870 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2019, no pet.) (combined appeal & orig. proceeding) (conditionally granting mandamus relief for the trial court's refusal to strike Cantu's petition in intervention in a Rule 202 proceeding).

In summary, in the underlying case, Cantu filed a petition seeking the pre-suit deposition of Hidalgo County District Attorney Ricardo Rodriguez under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202. See In re Moore, 2019 WL 6905837, at *1; see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 202. Moore filed a plea in intervention and moved to transfer the case from the 93rd District Court to the 92nd District Court alleging that Cantu had engaged in forum shopping. See In re Moore, 2019 WL 6905837, at *1. The Honorable Mario Ramirez recused himself and referred the case to the Honorable Missy Medary, the Presiding Judge of the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region. Id. Judge Medary ultimately assigned the Honorable Rogelio Valdez to the case for "the limited purpose" of determining the "Motion to Transfer From Improper Court Pursuant to Rule 1.2.7 Hidalgo County Local Rules, Plea in Intervention and Motion to Strike Plea in Intervention and Motion for Sanctions and Response to Motion to Transfer." Id. Nevertheless, the Honorable Fernando Mancias, the Presiding Judge of the 93rd District Court, began presiding over the case and struck Moore's plea in intervention. Id. Moore filed an original proceeding in this Court contending that Judge Mancias abused his discretion by issuing orders in the case after Judge Medary assigned Judge Valdez to the case. We concluded that Judge Mancias abused his discretion and conditionally granted the petition for writ ofmandamus. Id. at *5-7. We directed Judge Mancias to vacate his order of October 18, 2019, striking Moore's petition for intervention and all other orders that he had issued in this case. Id. at *7.

After we issued our opinion, Judge Valdez presided over the case as per Judge Medary's assignment and concluded that Cantu had improperly engaged in forum shopping. Accordingly, on December 1, 2020, Judge Valdez issued an "Order of Transfer" stating in relevant part:

THE COURT FINDS AND DECREES, that the Petitioner, Marco A. Cantu, by and through his name and in the name of his wife, Roxanne Cantu, engaged in "forum shopping" by filing and, in some cases, requesting the transfer of the following cases in the District Courts of Hidalgo County, Texas, namely:
1. C-3354-17-A; Petitioner Roxanne Cantu vs. Hidalgo County District Attorney Ricardo Rodriguez, Jr., et al., pending in the 92nd Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas;
2. C-3569-17-C; Petitioner Roxanne Cantu vs. Hidalgo County District Attorney Ricardo Rodriguez. Jr., et al., pending in the 139th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas:
3. C-3569-17-G; Petitioner Roxanne Cantu vs. Hidalgo County District Attorney Ricardo Rodriguez, Jr. et al., pending in the 370th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas;
4. C-3390-19-J; Petitioner Roxana Cantu vs. Hidalgo County District Attorney Ricardo Rodriguez, Jr. et al., pending in the 430th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas;
5. C-3673-19-L; Petitioner Mark A. Cantu vs. Hidalgo County District Attorney Ricardo Rodriguez. Jr., et al., pending in the 464th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas;
6. C-3933-19-D, Petitioner Marco A. Cantu vs. Hidalgo County District Attorney Ricardo Rodriguez, Jr., et al., pending in the 206th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County. Texas;7. C-4003-19-F; Petitioner Mark A. Cantu vs. Hidalgo County District Attorney Ricardo Rodriguez. Jr., et al., pending in the 275th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas; and
8. C-4003-19-B; Petitioner Marco A. Cantu vs. Hidalgo County District Attorney Ricardo Rodriguez, Jr. et. al., pending in the 93rd Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County Texas;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED, that in finding that Mark A. Cantu has engaged in "forum shopping" in the filing of the above reference[d] cases[;] the Court further finds Mark A. Cantu has subverted the random assignment of cases which "breeds disrespect for and threatens the integrity of our judicial system"[] in violation of Hidalgo County Local Rules, Rule 1.1 and that pursuant to Rule 1.2.7, this Court finds that the first filed case that was randomly assigned is C-3354-17-A; Petitioner Roxanne Cantu vs. Hidalgo County District Attorney Ricardo Rodriguez, Jr., et al. pending in the 92nd Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. [A]nd the Court further finds that all other cases that have been filed as listed in paragraphs 2-8 are "Improper Courts" as defined by the Local Rules of Hidalgo County, Texas and are hereby transferred to the 92nd Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas for any and all other proceedings. [A]nd the Court further finds that any future filings or new cases filed by Mark A. Cantu or through his alias and Roxanne Cantu or through her alias that arise from the same transaction, occurrence[,] or same or similar common nucleus of operative facts shall be transferred to the 92nd Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas for any further proceedings, and the Court defers any ruling on Petitioner Mark A. Cantu's Motion to Strike Plea of Intervention and Motion for Sanctions, to allow the Judge of the 92nd Judicial District Court to decide such issues. All costs shall be borne by the parties incurring same.
The Hidalgo County District Clerk's Office is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of this order and the transfer all such live cases as stated herein.

Subsequently, however, on December 16, 2020, Judge Mancias and the Honorable Luis M. Singleterry, Presiding Judge of the 92nd District Court, signed an "Order of Transfer" in this case which states merely that "by agreement of the District Judges of Hidalgo County, Texas, and under the Local Rules of Hidalgo County, the above-styled and enumerated cause is hereby transferred to the 93rd District Court." Thisorder thus transferred the case from the 92nd District Court, with Judge Singleterry presiding, back to the 93rd District Court, with Judge Mancias presiding. Based on the record, the "Order of Transfer" appears to have been entered without notice or hearing.

This original proceeding ensued. By one issue, Moore contends that mandamus relief is available "to prevent Judge Mancias from nullifying the ruling made by [Judge Valdez], where [Judge Valdez] had removed Judge Mancias from considering the matters properly transferred by [Judge Valdez] to the first filed Court." Moore asserts that Judge Mancias clearly abused his discretion and any remedy by appeal is inadequate. Moore seeks to compel Judge Mancias "to vacate his ex parte Order of Transfer of December 16, 2020, transferring this case to himself." By writ of prohibition, Moore seeks to prevent Judge Mancias "from interfering with the jurisdiction of the duly assigned Judge of the 92nd Judicial District Court . . . ."

This Court requested the real parties in interest, Cantu, Hidalgo County District Attorney Ricardo Rodriguez, and Assistant District Attorney Juan L. Villescas, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. Rodriguez and Villescas filed a response in support of Moore's petition for writ of mandamus. They allege that Judge Mancias abused his discretion by...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT