IN RE ABIRA MEDICAL LABORATORIES, LLC D/B/A GENESIS DIAGNOSTICS, Relator
PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS County Civil Court at Law No. 4
Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1080417
consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise.
October 25, 2017, Abira Medical Laboratories, LLC d/b/a
Genesis Diagnostics ("Genesis") filed a petition
for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex.
Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see
also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, Genesis asks
this court to compel the Honorable Roberta Lloyd, presiding
judge of County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County, to
vacate the following three orders: (1) the September 11, 2017
order granting the plea in intervention of Hologic, Inc.; (2)
the September 25, 2017 nunc pro tunc to the September 11,
2017 order granting the plea in intervention of Kingsbridge
Holdings, LLC; and (3) the September 25, 2017 order, granting
Kingsbridge's motion to direct the receiver to make
payments towards Kingsbridge's judgment. We conditionally
grant the petition.
Jude Medical SC, Inc. filed an original petition against K
& S Consulting, LLC aka and d/b/a K & S Consulting;
Westside Surgical Hospital, LLC aka and d/b/a Westside
Surgical Hospital; and Omar Kiggundu (collectively,
"Westside") on July 20, 2016, and a first amended
petition on August 1, 2016. The trial court, County Civil
Court at Law No. 4, signed a default judgment in favor of St.
Jude against Westside in the amount of $73, 560 on October
14, 2016. The trial court also awarded St. Jude's
attorneys $24, 520 in attorneys' fees.
Jude filed an application in the trial court for turnover
after judgment and the appointment of a receiver. On April
24, 2017, the trial court appointed a receiver "with the
power and authority to take possession of all non-exempt
property, real and personal" of Westside.
3, 2017, Hologic filed a plea in intervention in the
underlying post-judgment receivership pending in the trial
court. Hologic alleged that it is a judgment lien creditor
because it obtained a judgment, on February 2, 2017, against
Westside in the amount of $426, 909.80 in the 190th District
Court in Harris County.
10, 2017, Kingsbridge filed its own plea in intervention in
the underlying post-judgment receivership. Kingsbridge
alleged that it is a judgment lien creditor because it
obtained a judgment against Westside in the amount of $606,
639.13 in Lake County, Illinois, on March 14, 2017, which
Kingsbridge domesticated in Tarrant County, Texas, on May 1,
2017. On July 20, 2017, Kingsbridge filed a motion to direct
the receiver to make payments towards Kingsbridge's
August 2, 2017, Genesis filed a plea in intervention in the
underlying post-judgment receivership. Genesis claimed that
it had a perfected security interest in certain assets, which
has priority over all other judgment creditors.
filed a motion to strike Hologic's plea in intervention
on August 11, 2017, and a motion to strike Kingsbridge's
plea in intervention on August 22, 2017. The trial court
signed the order granting Hologic's plea in intervention
on September 11, 2017, and signed the nunc pro tunc to the
order granting Kingsbridge's plea in intervention on
September 25, 2017. The trial court also signed the order
granting Kingsbridge's motion to direct the receiver to
make payments towards Kingsbridge's judgment after
"full satisfaction of the judgment of Intervenor,
issues, Genesis asserts that the orders granting the
post-judgment interventions of Hologic and Kingsbridge and
the order granting Kingsbridge's motion to direct the
receiver to make payments towards Kingsbridge's judgment
are void because the trial court (1) had already lost its
plenary power before the pleas in interventions were filed;
and (2) does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the
Mandamus Standard of Review
a relator seeking mandamus relief must demonstrate that (1)
the trial court clearly abused its discretion; and (2) the
relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Nat'l
Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219, 226 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam). A trial court clearly abuses its
discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and
unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of
law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or
apply the law correctly to the facts. In re H.E.B.
Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302-03 (Tex. 2016)
(orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Cerberus Capital
Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig.
proceeding) (per ...