Cavazos Arena v. Andes Global Trading — New trial ordered because the reporter’s record was lost

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Victor Cavazos Arena appealed an interlocutory order granting Andes Global Trading LLC’s special appearance. After the appeal began, the court reporter notified the court of appeals that the reporter’s record from the special-appearance hearing had been lost or destroyed.

The court of appeals abated the case for findings under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f). After a hearing, the trial court found that the record had been permanently lost when the hard drive containing it was dropped and damaged. The court also found that neither party was at fault, the missing material was necessary to review the special-appearance ruling, and the record could not be accurately reconstructed or replaced by agreement.

The Court’s Holding

The court held that Arena was entitled to a new trial under Rule 34.6(f). He had timely requested the reporter’s record, the record was lost without his fault, the missing material was necessary to resolve the appeal, and the parties and trial court could not produce an accurate replacement.

Based on those findings and the supporting evidence, the court reinstated the appeal, reversed the trial court’s judgment granting Andes Global Trading’s special appearance, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Key Takeaways

• Rule 34.6(f) permits a new trial when a timely requested and necessary portion of the reporter’s record is lost without the appellant’s fault and cannot be replaced.
• The missing record was essential because it was unknown who attended the special-appearance hearing, what evidence was offered or admitted, and what objections were made.
• The court did not decide the merits of Andes Global Trading’s special appearance; it reversed because meaningful appellate review was impossible without the record.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that an appellant should not lose the opportunity for meaningful review because an essential hearing record was accidentally destroyed. When all requirements of Rule 34.6(f) are established, a new trial is the remedy even though neither party caused the loss.