33rd / 424th District Courts

A series of letters between attorneys (or any other agent of a party) is sufficient to satisfy Rule 11's writing requirement and withdrawal of consent to the settlement does not render such settlement as is set forth in the Rule 11 agreement unenforceable.

Facts: P filed suit prior to giving the 60-day notice required under Section 4.01(a) of Article 4590i (R.C.S.) (now Sect 74.051, CP&RC). D filed Motion to Abate and also sought abatement of all other statutorily imposed deadlines during the same 60 days, such as the 180 days within which to file an expert report.

Ruling: The abatement also extends those deadlines.
Rationale: See Hagedorn, 73 s.W.3d 341 (Amarillo) and Campbell, 44 S.W.3d
647 (Dallas) which are on opposite ends of the argument. Followed Campbell's reasoning and ruling.

The intent of a referral to mediation ... absent a motion to alter this result ... is to stay everything else happening in the case until mediation can be held. This is because the general theory is that for most cases a significant cost savings and greater likelihood of settlement can be realized by getting into mediation without work and focus on the litigation processes.

Fact situation: Party 1 files a Motion for Summary Judgment. Thereafter the case in referred to mediation. The mediation order issues prior to the setting date on the MSJ. Should the due date for a response to the MSJ be pushed back?