in Re: American Airlines, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided September 23, 2020·No. 05-20-00832-CV·Published

Opinion

DENY and Opinion Filed September 23, 2020

S In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00832-CV

IN RE AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-01085-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Reichek, and Browning Opinion by Justice Browning In this original proceeding, relator challenges the trial court’s August 7, 2019

order denying its request for a protective order and directing relator to present an apex executive for deposition. A writ of mandamus issues to correct a clear abuse of discretion when no adequate remedy by appeal exists. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding). One such principle is that “equity aids the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights.” Id. (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).

An unexplained delay of four months or more can constitute laches and result in denial of mandamus relief. See Rivera, 858 S.W.2d at 366 (unexplained delay of more than four months); Int’l Awards, Inc. v. Medina, 900 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995, orig. proceeding) (unexplained delay of more than four months and waited until eve of trial); Furr’s Supermarkets, Inc. v. Mulanax, 897 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no writ) (unexplained four-month delay in challenging discovery orders); Bailey v. Baker, 696 S.W.2d 255, 256 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding) (unexplained four-month delay and filed two weeks before trial).

Here, relators did not file the petition for writ of mandamus until September 17, 2020—more than a year after the challenged order was signed. We conclude that relators’ unexplained delay bars their right to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

/John G. Browning/

JONG G. BROWNING

JUSTICE

200832F.P05

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

in Re: American Airlines, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2020).

in Re: American Airlines, Inc. (in Re: American Airlines, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera
858 S.W.2d 366 (Texas Supreme Court, 1993)
International Awards, Inc. v. Medina
900 S.W.2d 934 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Bailey v. Baker
696 S.W.2d 255 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Furr's Supermarkets, Inc. v. Mulanax
897 S.W.2d 442 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)