in Re: 165 Howe, LP
This text of in Re: 165 Howe, LP (in Re: 165 Howe, LP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
DENY; and Opinion Filed July 3, 2018.
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00762-CV
IN RE 165 HOWE, LP, ET AL., Relators
Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-03144-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Fillmore Before the Court is relators’ July 3, 2018 Petition for Writ of Mandamus in which they
complain of the trial court’s June 4, 2018 discovery order compelling relators to comply by July
4, 2018. To be entitled to mandamus relief, relators must show both that the trial court has clearly
abused its discretion and that relators have no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins.
Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
Based on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown they are entitled to the
relief requested. Further, relators do not explain why they have waited to the eve of the compliance
deadline to seek a stay and to seek extraordinary relief. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition
for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court
determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought); see also In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274
S.W.3d 672, 676 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (“[D]elaying the filing of a petition
for mandamus relief may waive the right to mandamus unless the relator can justify the delay.”); In re Boehme, 256 S.W.3d 878, 887 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding)
(“delay alone can provide ample ground to deny mandamus relief.”); Furr’s Supermarkets, Inc. v.
Mulanax, 897 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, orig. proceeding) (relator sought
mandamus relief on the day documents were due and four months after court’s oral discovery
ruling).
/Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
180762F.P05
–2–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re: 165 Howe, LP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-165-howe-lp-texapp-2018.