In re Madeleine Connor Appeal from 353rd District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-18-00772-CV In re Madeleine Connor ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Madeleine Connor has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s order severing her claims against certain defendants after those claims were dismissed pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act.1 See Tex. R. App. P. 52. Mandamus relief may be appropriate if a trial court improperly severs claims into a separate case.2 See, e.g., In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611, 614-15 (Tex. 2011) (when severance into eight separate suits was improper, State lacked adequate remedy by appeal because of “enormous waste of judicial and public resources”); In re City of Austin Police Dep’t, No. 03-98-00661-CV, 1999 WL 11224, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 14, 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (Texas courts have a policy against “piecemeal trials,” and mandamus relief “is appropriate when the trial court improperly severs a single cause of action”). However, 1 2 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.001-.011. See In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611, 614 (Tex. 2011) (severance is proper if controversy involves multiple causes of action, severed claim could be independently asserted, and severed claim is not so interwoven with remaining claim that they involve same facts and issues). Connor’s claims against the real parties in interest have been dismissed and thus can no longer be considered interwoven with her remaining claims. Further, Connor has explained that she wishes to challenge the dismissal of her claims against the real parties in interest, and the severance order rendered those dismissals final and appealable. See, e.g., Martinez v. Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Tex. 1994). Thus, Connor has an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Rogers, No. 09-11-00644-CV, 2012 WL 112553, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 12, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“As to the severed cause, appeal is available and will be an adequate remedy.”); In re Fantroy, No. 10-09-00008-CV, 2009 WL 91712, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 9, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“because he has an adequate remedy by appeal of the judgment and severance order, Fantroy’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied”); In re Clayton, No. 09-05-00412-CV, 2006 WL 1045175, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 20, 2006, orig. proceeding (mem. op.) (once severance signed, interlocutory orders were appealable). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). __________________________________________ Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland Filed: December 13, 2018 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
