 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morrill v. Cisek8/31/2005
(Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). If a defendant who is appealing the denial of a special appearance meets the deadlines set forth in section 51.014(c), the defendant is entitled to an automatic stay of the commencement of a trial. See id. ยง 51.014(c). To be entitled to the automatic stay for an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a special appearance, the defendant must file the special appearance and request a submission or hearing on it by the later of the following: (1) the date set by the trial court in a scheduling order, or (2) the 180th day after the date the defendant filed (a) her original answer; (b) her first other responsive pleading to the plaintiff's petition; or (c) her responsive pleading to the plaintiff's amended petition that alleges a new cause of action against the defendant, who is then able to raise a defense concerning the lack of personal jurisdiction. Id.
Cisek does not contend, and the record does not reveal, that the trial court, in a scheduling order, set a date for filing, submitting, or hearing Morrill's special appearance. However, the record shows that Cisek filed his original petition on December 13, 2002, and his amended petition on February 7, 2003, and that Morrill filed her "motions" challenging the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over her on January 15, 2003 and on January 31, 2003. Furthermore, the trial court's December 3, 2003 order denying Morrill's special appearance expressly noted that the special appearance was heard on March 31, 2003. Therefore, pursuant to section 51.014(c) of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code, Morrill was entitled to the automatic stay in order to pursue her interlocutory appeal after the trial court denied her special appearance. See id. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in rendering a default judgment in favor of Cisek while her interlocutory appeal was pending in this Court.
We sustain Morrill's sole issue regarding her challenge to the default judgment rendered against her.
Conclusion
In appellate cause number 01-03-01336-CV, we affirm the order of the trial court denying Morrill's special appearance. In appellate cause number 01-04-00266-CV, we reverse the trial court's default judgment and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. We deny all outstanding motions.
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Alcala.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|