Parallel proceedings in different courts:

                    Plea to the Jurisdiction vs. Plea for Abatement

In Re Alice Puig (Tex. 2011),
No. 10-0460  (Tex. Jul. 1, 2011)(per curiam opinion) (mandamus denied)
(civil procedure: plea in abatement vs. to the jurisdiction, dominant and vs. exclusive jurisdiction,)

THE GIST:  In this case, we are asked to grant mandamus relief to correct a district court’s
denial of a plea to the jurisdiction. The plea challenged the district court’s jurisdiction to
determine the ownership of a ranch allegedly owned, in part, by an estate undergoing
administration in a county court at law. Under our precedent, the issue here is one of
dominant, not exclusive, jurisdiction. The proper method for contesting a court’s lack of
dominant jurisdiction is the filing of a
plea in abatement, not a plea to the jurisdiction as
the relators filed here.
See Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245, 247–48 (Tex.
1988). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the relators’ plea to
the jurisdiction, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Conclusion: Because the issue is one of dominant, rather than exclusive, jurisdiction the
relators
should have filed a plea in abatement. The district court’s denial of the relators’
plea to the jurisdiction, therefore, did not constitute an abuse of discretion depriving the
relators of an adequate appellate remedy.
See Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex.
1985). We note that the improper denial of a plea in abatement may, on occasion, warrant
mandamus relief.
See, e.g., Curtis, 511 S.W.2d at 266–68. Pleas in abatement are incidental
rulings, the denial of which ordinarily does not support mandamus relief.
See Abor, 695 S.W.
2d at 567.2 But when a court issues an “order which actively interferes with the exercise of
jurisdiction” by a court possessing dominant jurisdiction, mandamus relief is appropriate.
Id.;
see Perry v. Del Rio
, 66 S.W.3d 239, 258 (Tex. 2001) (granting mandamus relief to direct a
district court to move a trial setting so that another court that already exercised jurisdiction
over different cases involving nearly identical issues, parties, and witnesses could first
consider those cases);
Curtis, 511 S.W.2d at 266–68 (granting mandamus relief directing a
judge to sustain a plea in abatement in a child custody suit where one court attempted to
exercise jurisdiction with respect to the children, despite the fact that dominant jurisdiction
had previously been established in another court). Because the Webb County district court
did not commit a clear abuse of discretion in denying the relators’ plea to the jurisdiction, any
further inquiry into the relators’ appellate remedy is unnecessary. Accordingly, the relators’
petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

CASE DETAILS: IN RE ALICE M. PUIG IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS THE
INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ALICIA PRIETO PUIG, AND CHARLES B.
PUIG; from
Webb County; 4th district (04-10-00197-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-02-10)
stay order issued July 30, 2010, lifted  
Per Curiam Opinion [
pdf]
Here is the link to e-briefs in case no. [ not available as of 7/1 - bad link on court's website]   
 

DOCKET DB INFORMATION FOR THIS CASE: No. 10-460  

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
  In Re Alice Puig (Tex. 2011)(per curiam)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

TEXT OF OPINION
[ click on case style to get opinion in pdf]






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also see:
Texas Causes of Action  
|
2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams
Who owns the ranch?
UPDATE MOTION FOR REHEARING RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED -  
Corrected opinion substituted
In Re Puig, No. 10-0460 (Tex. Sep. 30, 2011)
10-0460 IN RE ALICE M. PUIG IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS THE INDEPENDENT
ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ALICIA PRIETO PUIG, AND CHARLES B. PUIG; from Webb County; 4th district
(04-10-00197-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-02-10)
corrected opinion issued