in Re: 165 Howe, LP

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 3, 2018
Docket05-18-00762-CV
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
in Re: 165 Howe, LP, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

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

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
In Re International Profit Associates, Inc.
274 S.W.3d 672 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
In Re Boehme
256 S.W.3d 878 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Furr's Supermarkets, Inc. v. Mulanax
897 S.W.2d 442 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re: 165 Howe, LP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-165-howe-lp-texapp-2018.