Background
Baruch Teitelbaum, Nidia Jandres, and Natalie Spratt filed an emergency petition for writ of mandamus in the Third Court of Appeals, together with an emergency motion for temporary relief and an administrative stay, seeking relief from a Travis County trial court order holding them in contempt. The relators invoked Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.1 and 52.10(a). The court of appeals granted the motion for temporary relief, denied the request for an administrative stay as moot, stayed the contempt order only as to the three relators, and directed the real party in interest, 532 Title Way LLC, to file a response.
Title Way timely responded. In its response, Title Way asserted that it had submitted a motion to the trial court asking for withdrawal of its contempt adjudications against the relators and requesting the issuance of new show cause orders naming the relators individually. Title Way claimed the motion was attached as an appendix to its response, but no appendix was attached. The court of appeals nonetheless took judicial notice that Title Way had filed a motion in the trial court on October 16, 2026, styled as a motion to amend or modify the contempt order, asking the trial court to vacate its contempt order against the relators and issue new show cause orders directed at them individually. The court also took judicial notice that counsel for the relators did not oppose that motion, citing In re Lombana, 542 S.W.3d 699, 701 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding), for the proposition that appellate courts may take judicial notice of facts outside the record to determine their jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The per curiam court did not reach the merits of the mandamus petition. Instead, it reasoned that if the trial court were to grant Title Way’s requested relief, the relators’ petition would most likely be moot, because the relators had asked the court of appeals to direct the trial court to vacate its contempt judgment against them. The court cited In re Haywood, No. 01-21-00645-CV, 2022 WL 10207672, *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 18, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), which dismissed a mandamus petition for mootness when the relator received the relief sought by her petition.
Accordingly, the court abated the mandamus proceeding until November 25, 2026, so the trial court could consider Title Way’s motion. The court compared its action to In re Gonzales, 391 S.W.3d 251, 252–53 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), in which the court abated a mandamus proceeding under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10(b) to determine whether an assigned judge would uphold the challenged trial court order after the original respondent judge recused herself.
The court ordered the parties to inform it as soon as the trial court disposes of Title Way’s motion and to report the disposition’s effect on the relators’ petition. If the trial court has not disposed of the motion during the abatement period, the parties must provide a joint status report by November 25, 2026, detailing their efforts in resolving the motion. The court further ordered that its October 9, 2026, partial stay of the trial court’s contempt order against the relators shall remain in full force and effect during the abatement period and until further order of the court.
Key Takeaways
- The Third Court of Appeals abated, rather than decided, an emergency mandamus petition challenging a contempt order, pausing the proceeding until November 25, 2026, so the trial court could consider the real party in interest’s motion to vacate the contempt adjudications and issue new individually directed show cause orders.
- The court’s abatement rested on likely mootness: because the relators sought an order directing the trial court to vacate the contempt judgment, the petition would most likely be moot if the trial court granted Title Way’s requested relief.
- The court took judicial notice of filings outside the record—Title Way’s October 16, 2026 trial court motion and the relators’ lack of opposition—to assess its jurisdiction, and it did so even though Title Way failed to attach the motion as an appendix to its response.
- The court’s earlier partial stay of the contempt order, protecting only the three relators, remains in effect during the abatement and until further order; the court did not vacate the contempt order or rule on the merits of the contempt adjudication.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how Texas appellate courts manage emergency mandamus practice when events in the trial court may moot the requested relief. Rather than expend resources on the merits of a contempt challenge, the court used abatement under Rule 52.10(b) to let the trial court act first, while preserving the status quo through a continued partial stay.
For practitioners, the case underscores two practical points: appellate courts may take judicial notice of trial court filings to resolve jurisdictional questions such as mootness, even when a party fails to attach the relevant document to its response; and parties in an abated original proceeding bear affirmative obligations to report promptly on developments below, including a joint status report if the trial court does not act within the abatement window.