In Re: Autumn Ranch, LLC v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 20, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-00255-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed March 20, 2024

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00255-CV

IN RE AUTUMN RANCH, LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-03340

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Nowell Before the Court is relator’s March 6, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator challenges an April 26, 2023 order denying relator’s plea in abatement.

Relator contends that a suit relator filed in Rockwall County before real party filed

suit in Dallas County has dominant jurisdiction.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record

to show it is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rule 52 requires a relator to file with its petition “a properly

authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding,

including any exhibits offered into evidence, or a statement that no testimony was

adduced in connection with the matter complained.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). “Those

seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable

procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the

reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” In re CG Searcy, No. 05-24-

00020-CV, LLC, 2024 WL 861385, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 29, 2024, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.).

Here, the record reflects the trial court held a hearing on relator’s plea in

abatement on April 25, 2023. But relator neither provided this Court with a transcript

of that hearing nor a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the

matter complained of at the hearing. Thus, we conclude relator failed to meet its

burden to provide a sufficient record to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

Even if no testimony was adduced and no exhibits were admitted into

evidence at the hearing, we conclude that relator’s petition is barred by laches.

Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by

equitable principles. In re Barnes, No. 05-22-00312-CV, 2022 WL 1955754, at *1

(Tex. App.—Dallas June 3, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). One such principle

is that “equity aids the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights.” Id.

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Thus, delaying the filing of a

–2– petition for mandamus relief may waive the right to mandamus unless the relator can

justify the delay.” Id. “A delay of only a few months can constitute laches and result

in denial of mandamus relief.” Id.

Here, the trial court denied relator’s plea in abatement on April 26, 2023.

Relator did not seek mandamus relief for more than ten months. The record reflects

that in the interim, the trial court in Rockwall County transferred the claims between

relator and real party in interest to Dallas County in December 2023. Relator

provides no explanation for its delay in seeking mandamus relief. Accordingly, we

conclude that relator’s unreasonable delay bars its right to mandamus relief. We thus

deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

/Erin A. Nowell// 240255f.p05 ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE

–3–