Dallas attorney Carlos Lopez, the state’s former district judge, argued in his motion to appease cases that 95% of courts that have heard similar motions have ruled against the attorney general’s office, and appeals of these decisions are already pending before the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin. He suggested that, for the sake of judicial economy and to avoid a confusing patchwork of decisions on the same issue, Menard tone down the two cases in Waco and add them to the dozen pending in Austin.
Lopez said the state’s continued insistence on pressuring Menard to issue the temporary injunction amounted to “forum shopping,” a tactic used by lawyers to try to find a court that might be favorable to them. position.
âWe’re here because other courts have ruled against them and they want another bite of an apple,â Lopez said. âThey say, ‘We want a recovery.’ If you narrow down the cases, they can all come together in a nice and cohesive whole, because we all know this case will ultimately be settled in the Texas Supreme Court anyway. â
Deputy Attorney General Will Wassdorf has said McLennan County is the appropriate venue for the trial because the schools in Waco and La Vega violate the mask warrant ban and are located in McLennan County.
âThe place to sue Waco and La Vega is not appropriate in Travis County,â Wassdorf said. “If we allow the business of Travis County to continue and sit on our laurels until the end, we’ll be back here to establish that Waco and La Vega violated the mask’s mandate.”