In Re Discount Tire Company of Texas, Inc. and the Reinalt-Thomas Corporation v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 19, 2025
• Docket: 09-25-00131-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00131-CV __________________

IN RE DISCOUNT TIRE COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC. AND THE REINALT-THOMAS CORPORATION

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 58th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. A-210,788 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Relators Discount Tire Company of

Texas, Inc. and The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation challenge the trial court’s order of

April 11, 2025, which ordered Relators to produce “all balance sheets, income

statements, cash flow statements, revenue statements, and profit and loss reports”

for the fiscal year 2024 to the present. Relators argue the Real Parties in Interest,

Todd Minter, Amy Minter, Addison Minter, Cedric Bekkens, Peggy Bekkens and

Mathis Bekkens, failed to prove a substantial likelihood of success on their gross

1 negligence claims. Additionally, Relators argue the trial court abused its discretion

by ordering production of anything more than Discount Tire’s current balance sheet.

We promptly requested a response from the Real Parties in Interest. They filed

a motion to dismiss this original proceeding without responding to any of the

arguments presented in Relators’ mandamus petition. They assert this proceeding is

moot because the trial court vacated the challenged order.

In reply, Relators argue the controversy presented in their mandamus petition

is not moot because Counsel for the Real Parties in Interest refused to enter into a

Rule 11 agreement saying they are not currently entitled to net worth discovery.

Relators argue the issue of net worth discovery is not moot as it is capable of

repetition in a manner that evades review. See In re Allied Chem. Corp., 227 S.W.3d

652, 655 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

The trial court vacated the net worth discovery order on its own motion. In

that regard this case is distinguishable from the case cited by Relators, in which the

real parties in interest withdrew their challenged discovery requests after the relators

sought mandamus review. See In re Contract Freighters, 646 S.W.3d 810, 813-14

(Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (“But mootness is not readily found, particularly

when a party has taken steps to cause mootness.”).

2 We conclude this original proceeding is moot. Accordingly, we grant the

motion to dismiss, and we dismiss this mandamus proceeding as moot.

PETITION DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 25, 2025 Opinion Delivered June 19, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.