From In re Obeginski, decided by the Texas Court of Appeals yesterday (Chief Justice Scott Golemon, joined by Justices Jay Wright and Kent Chambers):
In an order imposing sanctions on Scott Mitchell Obeginski for citing fictional authority in Trial Court Cause Number 24-11-18234, the trial court ordered Obeginski, when making "any filing of any plea, pleading, motion, brief, or similar" in any capacity to "include with each filing with any and all Court(s) or Clerk(s) as attachments a copy of any and all legal authorities cited in the filing highlighting the portion of the legal authority attached which supports the proposition for which he cites the legal authority."
In a mandamus petition, Obeginski contends the trial court's directive is "an act far exceeding its jurisdiction" and argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to exercise its ministerial duty to vacate the order after "the loss of plenary power." Obeginski argues mandamus relief is appropriate to alleviate harm from "an unconstitutional restriction on court access." {The Order made additional rulings and imposed additional sanctions, but only the order to provide copies of cited case authority is at issue in this mandamus proceeding.} …
The trial court had personal jurisdiction over Obeginski and the inherent power to sanction him for his improper conduct in [that court]. Thus, the trial court possessed the authority to sanction Obeginski for citing fictitious legal authority in his filings in [that case]. The larger question is whether the trial court possessed the authority to require Obeginski to attach a copy of the legal authorities cited in a filing Obeginski makes with any court, not just the [trial court that issued the order].
