in Re: Cna Lloyds of Texas

NUMBER 13-07-386-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ IN RE: CNA LLOYDS OF TEXAS, ET AL. ____________________________________________________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (1) Relators, CNA Lloyds of Texas, et al., filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief in the above cause on June 14, 2007. By order issued on June 19, 2007, the Court granted the motion for temporary relief and requested a response from the real parties in interest. Having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and response thereto, the Court is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. Relators contend that the trial court abused its discretion: (1) by ordering discovery in a case in which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) by ordering discovery before it ruled on the pleas to the jurisdiction; and (3) by ordering relators to produce the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of injured workers who may or may not be members of the class. In their first issue, relators argue that the Division has exclusive jurisdiction over workers' compensation benefits disputes and all of plaintiffs' claims arise out of relators' alleged failure to pay workers compensation benefits, thus the district court abused its discretion when it ordered discovery in a case in which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. This issue presupposes that the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The trial court has not ruled on the pleas to the jurisdiction and, accordingly, this issue is not properly before us. See In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1999) (mandamus is not available to compel an action that has not first been demanded and refused). To the extent that relators ask that we direct the trial court to rule on the pleas to the jurisdiction, relators have failed to carry their burden to establish that (1) the trial court had a legal duty to perform, (2) relators made a demand for performance of this duty, and (3) the trial court refused to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979); In re Torres, 130 S.W.3d 409, 413 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2004, orig. proceeding). In their second issue, relators contend that the district court abused its discretion when it ordered discovery before ruling on the pleas to the jurisdiction. It is clear that a trial court has broad discretion to schedule and define the scope of discovery. See In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 181 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding). Further, a plea to the jurisdiction may require the court to consider evidence pertaining to jurisdictional facts. Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227 (Tex. 2004); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000). When the consideration of a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction requires the examination of evidence, the trial court exercises its discretion in deciding whether the jurisdictional determination should be made at a preliminary hearing or await a fuller development of the case, mindful that this determination must be made as soon as practicable. Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 554. This determination "must be left largely to the trial court's sound exercise of discretion." Id. In the instant case, the record before the Court fails to establish that the trial court has abused its discretion by acting unreasonably. See Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173. In their third issue, relators contend that the district court's discovery order is unduly burdensome and subjects relators to potential criminal liability for disclosure of the requested information. The record before the Court indicates that the discovery responses at issue would require approximately thirty hours to prepare. Such an order is not unduly burdensome. See id. at 181. Discovery regarding the identity of potential class members is generally allowed. See id. Relators have not carried their burden to show that their release to opposing counsel of the requested information -- names, addresses, telephone numbers, claim numbers, and the fact that the claims were denied -- would subject relators to criminal liability. Based on the foregoing, the stay previously imposed by this Court is ordered lifted and the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this 24th day of September, 2007. 1. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).