On August 25, 2020 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
San Jacinto River Authority,
and
Quadvest, L.P. D B A Quadvest Water And Sewer Utility,
Woodland Oaks Utility, L.P.,
for Contract Consumer/Commercial/Debt >$200,000
in the District Court of Montgomery County.
Preview
RIVER AUTHORITY, DISTRICT COURT
284TH JUDICIAL
Defendants’ counterclaims
ultimate termination of the litigation.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(d) (emphasis added).
The trial court must authorize the permissive appeal “by written order.” Id.
The Rules of Civil Procedure further provide that such “[p]ermission must be stated in the
order to be appealed,” and that “[a]n order previously issued may be amended to include such
permission.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. The amended order “must identify the controlling question of
law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and must state why an
immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Jd.
The Order decides the following “Controlling Questions of Law” raised in the SJRA’s
Motions for Partial Summary Judgment:
1 Whether the GRP Contracts are incontestable, valid and enforceable as a matter of law
under Tex. Gov’t Code § 1202.006, and if so, the scope of that incontestability.
Whether the GRP Contracts are incontestable, valid and enforceable as a matter of law
under Tex. Gov’t Code § 1371.059, and if so, the scope of that incontestability.
Whether the GRP Contracts are incontestable, valid and enforceable as a matter of law
under Tex. Water Code § 49.184, and if so, the scope of that incontestability.
The Order and the Controlling Questions of Law involve the parties’ competing
interpretations of Texas law. The parties have made conflicting arguments, and there was and is
a substantial difference of opinion about the answer to the controlling questions.
The immediate appeal of the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of this
litigation, as the resolution of the question of incontestability of the GRP Contracts will
considerably shorten the time, effort and expense of discovery and fully litigating the remainder
of the case.
The immediate appeal of the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of
other litigation involving these same parties. Specifically, the GRP Contracts are implicated
directly or indirectly in the following litigation:
1. Quadvest, L.P. and Woodland Oaks Utility, L.P. v. San Jacinto River Authority, Cause
No. 22-09-24500-CVR in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas Houston Division; and
2. Quadvest, L.P., et al v. San Jacinto River Authority v. City of Conroe, et al., Cause No.
20-08-10189 in the 284" District Court, Montgomery County, Texas.
Accordingly, immediate appeal of the Order may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the related litigation.
WHEREFORE, the parties request that the Court amend its Order entered on December 16, 2022
to grant permission to appeal, as reflected in the proposed order attached to this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marvin W. Jones
Marvin W. Jones
Texas Bar No. 10929100
marty.jones@sprouselaw.com
C. Brantley Jones
Texas Bar No. 24079808
brantley.jones@sprouselaw.com
SPROUSE SHRADER SMITH PLLC
P. O. Box 15008
Amarillo, Texas 79105-5008
Telephone: (806) 468-3300
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS
/s/ James E. Zucker
James E. Zucker, jzucker@yettercoleman.com
State Bar No. 24060876
Reagan W. Simpson, rsimpson@yettercoleman.com
State Bar No. 18404700
Justin S. Rowinsky, jrowinsky@yettercoleman.com
State Bar No. 24110303
811 Main Street, Suite 4100
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 632-8000
(713) 632-8002
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT
Document Filed Date
May 09, 2023
Case Filing Date
August 25, 2020
Category
Contract Consumer/Commercial/Debt >$200,000
Status
Pending - Inactive
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
RIVER AUTHORITY, DISTRICT COURT 284TH JUDICIAL Defendants’ counterclaims ultimate termination of the litigation.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(d) (emphasis added). The trial court must authorize the permissive appeal “by written order.” Id. The Rules of Civil Procedure further provide that such “[p]ermission must be stated in the order to be appealed,” and that “[a]n order previously issued may be amended to include such permission.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. The amended order “must identify the controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and must state why an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Jd. The Order decides the following “Controlling Questions of Law” raised in the SJRA’s Motions for Partial Summary Judgment: 1 Whether the GRP Contracts are incontestable, valid and enforceable as a matter of law under Tex. Gov’t Code § 1202.006, and if so, the scope of that incontestability. Whether the GRP Contracts are incontestable, valid and enforceable as a matter of law under Tex. Gov’t Code § 1371.059, and if so, the scope of that incontestability. Whether the GRP Contracts are incontestable, valid and enforceable as a matter of law under Tex. Water Code § 49.184, and if so, the scope of that incontestability. The Order and the Controlling Questions of Law involve the parties’ competing interpretations of Texas law. The parties have made conflicting arguments, and there was and is a substantial difference of opinion about the answer to the controlling questions. The immediate appeal of the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation, as the resolution of the question of incontestability of the GRP Contracts will considerably shorten the time, effort and expense of discovery and fully litigating the remainder of the case. The immediate appeal of the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of other litigation involving these same parties. Specifically, the GRP Contracts are implicated directly or indirectly in the following litigation: 1. Quadvest, L.P. and Woodland Oaks Utility, L.P. v. San Jacinto River Authority, Cause No. 22-09-24500-CVR in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division; and 2. Quadvest, L.P., et al v. San Jacinto River Authority v. City of Conroe, et al., Cause No. 20-08-10189 in the 284" District Court, Montgomery County, Texas. Accordingly, immediate appeal of the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the related litigation. WHEREFORE, the parties request that the Court amend its Order entered on December 16, 2022 to grant permission to appeal, as reflected in the proposed order attached to this motion. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Marvin W. Jones Marvin W. Jones Texas Bar No. 10929100 marty.jones@sprouselaw.com C. Brantley Jones Texas Bar No. 24079808 brantley.jones@sprouselaw.com SPROUSE SHRADER SMITH PLLC P. O. Box 15008 Amarillo, Texas 79105-5008 Telephone: (806) 468-3300 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS /s/ James E. Zucker James E. Zucker, jzucker@yettercoleman.com State Bar No. 24060876 Reagan W. Simpson, rsimpson@yettercoleman.com State Bar No. 18404700 Justin S. Rowinsky, jrowinsky@yettercoleman.com State Bar No. 24110303 811 Main Street, Suite 4100 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 632-8000 (713) 632-8002 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT