# In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. Supreme Court of Texas, No. 24-0786 **In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 24-0786, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Whether a trial court abuses its discretion by signing a scheduling order that declares a defendant's deadlines to amend pleadings and designate experts had already "PASSED" when, absent a signed discovery control plan, the rules' default Level 2 deadlines were still months away.** Practice areas: insurance, civil procedure ## Key issues - Whether a trial court abuses its discretion by signing a scheduling order that declares a defendant's deadlines to amend pleadings and designate experts had already "PASSED" when, absent a signed discovery control plan, the rules' default Level 2 deadlines were still months away. - Whether the trial court then abused its discretion by striking the defendant's amended answer and refusing leave to file a counteraffidavit and designate experts, leaving the defendant without an adequate remedy by appeal. ## Factual History Ivis Aleman sued his insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and claims adjuster Jeff Herridge on June 4, 2019 in Dallas County, seeking a declaratory judgment that State Farm owes him underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits and alleging extra-contractual claims under Texas Insurance Code chapter 541; the underlying collision occurred in 2017 (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 12; Brief on the Merits (Real Party in Interest), PDF p. 22 n.3). State Farm removed the case to federal court on July 17, 2019, where it sat administratively closed until the federal court remanded it, and it was reinstated in state court on September 1, 2022 (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 12). ## Procedural History In October 2022 and again in January 2023 the parties asked the Dallas County Court at Law No. 1 to enter an agreed scheduling order with May and June 2023 deadlines to amend pleadings and designate experts and an October 2023 trial, but the court never signed it before transferring the case to Court at Law No. 4 on February 24, 2023. After the new court set a June 2023 trial, State Farm moved to reset it; the parties agreed to a January 2024 trial, and State Farm proposed a scheduling order with July and August 2023 deadlines. Aleman moved on July 10, 2023 for an order stating that nearly all deadlines had "PASSED," and at a July 24, 2023 hearing Judge Dianne Jones signed it, explaining that the parties had agreed to deadlines though the court had not signed an order. She then struck State Farm's second amended answer, filed June 29, 2023 to add contributory negligence, and denied State Farm leave to file it, to file a counteraffidavit on the reasonableness and necessity of Aleman's medical expenses, and to designate experts (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 12-17). The Dallas Court of Appeals denied mandamus on August 15, 2024 (Carlyle, J., joined by Partida-Kipness and Garcia, JJ.), and State Farm petitioned this Court on September 17, 2024; Aleman responded November 15 and State Farm replied December 3, 2024. This is the second mandamus petition in the case: in No. 23-0977, which challenged the denial of a motion to abate the extra-contractual claims, the Court denied relief on April 25, 2025, citing In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 712 S.W.3d 53 (Tex. 2025), and lifted its stay (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 6, 17-18). The Court requested merits briefing on June 20, 2025; State Farm filed on August 4, Aleman on August 18 and State Farm replied September 9, 2025, and on October 24, 2025 the Court set the case for oral argument on January 14, 2026; on December 15, 2025 the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on December 19, 2025, dismissing the proceeding without a decision. ## Issues Presented State Farm presents two issues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by entering an initial discovery control plan order that mandates State Farm's deadlines for amending its petition and designating experts had already "PASSED," and by entering subsequent orders based on it, even though the deadlines were still months away under the default rules, leaving State Farm unable to amend, designate experts, or file controverting affidavits; and (2) mandamus is necessary because its defense has been severely compromised and relief will prevent wasted time and money on an improperly conducted trial (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 8). Aleman responds that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion because Rule 190.4 lets a court set deadlines different from the Level 2 defaults, and that mandamus is improper because State Farm was not diligent and its lack of effort is not important to the state's jurisprudence (Brief on the Merits (Real Party in Interest), PDF p. 7). ## Legal Arguments **Relators (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Jeff Herridge):** Under Rules 190.3 and 190.4(b), the default Level 2 deadlines govern until the court enters a discovery control plan, so State Farm's deadlines to amend (Rule 63 permits amendment up to seven days before trial) and to designate experts were still months away when the court declared them "PASSED." Rule 190.4(b)(4) requires a scheduling order to include such deadlines, no rule lets a court retroactively strip a party of pending deadlines, and an unsigned proposed agreed order built around a different trial date did not set them. The court's later orders striking the amended answer and denying leave for a counteraffidavit (available under section 18.001 with leave until evidence begins) and experts compound the error and leave State Farm unable to assert contributory negligence or contest medical expenses at a trial that would be reversed. State Farm asks the Court to vacate the orders and direct entry of a new scheduling order with deadlines for it (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 9-11, 18-28; Reply Brief (Relator), PDF pp. 4-8). **Real Party in Interest (Ivis Aleman):** Aleman says the agreed scheduling order the parties both signed and filed was enforceable under Rule 11, and the court acted within Rule 190.4's authority to tailor deadlines to the case and to give effect to the parties' agreed dates (Aleman's amend-and-designate deadline of May 8, 2023 and State Farm's of June 8, 2023). State Farm's cases are distinguishable, and State Farm was not diligent: the case had been pending since 2019, State Farm sought to amend its answer to allege contributory negligence six years after the collision and to file a counteraffidavit years after receiving his documentation, and equity aids the diligent. He also argues the case is not important to the jurisprudence of the state (Brief on the Merits (Real Party in Interest), PDF pp. 8-14, 20-22). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case State Farm argues that there is no authority allowing a court to strip a party of pending deadlines by mandating that they have passed, that the trial court's orders threaten important procedural rights, and that the case is appropriate for resolution in a per curiam opinion (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 9, 28). Aleman argues the petition raises no important issue for the state's jurisprudence, calling it a "unique mess" of State Farm's own making (Brief on the Merits (Real Party in Interest), PDF p. 8). ## Practice Area Tags insurance, civil-procedure ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) from the Dallas Court of Appeals, which denied mandamus relief from scheduling and related orders of a Dallas County court at law in a UIM and Insurance Code case. The Court requested and received merits briefing and, on October 24, 2025, set the case for oral argument on January 14, 2026. On December 19, 2025, after the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss, the Court granted the relators' unopposed motion and dismissed the proceeding without deciding it. ## Amicus Involvement None --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/24-0786. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.