In Re Eddie Hodges Jr v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion issued September 25, 2025.

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Relator, Eddie Hodges Jr., filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging

the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss real party in interest Crystal Flack’s

suit against him.2 Relator requested that the Court vacate the order denying his

motion to dismiss and order the trial court to grant the same.

We conclude that relator has failed to establish that he is entitled to

mandamus relief, and therefore the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.

2 The underlying case is Crystal Flack v. Kennard Law, P.C., Alfonso Kennard, Jr., and Eddie Hodges, Jr., Cause No. 2024-88874 in the 281st District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Christine Weems presiding.

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-25-00321-CV ——————————— IN RE EDDIE HODGES JR., Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION1 1 Relator filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for reconsideration en banc of this Court’s August 28, 2025 opinion. We deny the motion for rehearing, and withdraw our August 28, 2025 opinion and issue this opinion in its place. Our disposition remains the same. We deny Relator’s motion for reconsideration en banc as moot. See In re Wagner, 560 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (“Because we issue a new opinion in connection with the denial of rehearing, the motion for en banc reconsideration is rendered moot.”); Richardson-Eagle, Inc. v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 213 S.W.3d 469, 472 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied); Brookshire Bros. v. Smith, 176 S.W.3d 30, 40 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied).