In Re: Ernest M. Edsel, Jonathan Fielding, Travis W. Berkley, John "Jack" Dimond v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 24, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-00427-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and Opinion Filed April 24, 2024

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00427-CV

IN RE ERNEST M. EDSEL, JONATHAN FIELDING, TRAVIS W. BERKLEY, AND JOHN “JACK” DIMOND, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-16167

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Before the Court is relators’ April 9, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus. In

their petition, relators raise several issues challenging the trial court’s failure to rule

or act on certain motions, including two motions to recuse, several motions

contesting special appearances, and a rule 329b motion to modify or vacate the trial

court’s order granting the special appearances.

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

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

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

proceeding). After reviewing relators’ petition and the record before us, we requested a

response limited to the following issue: whether respondent Judge Tobolowsky

failed to comply with a duty imposed by rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure and, if so, whether relators are entitled to any mandamus relief from any

such failure. We received a response from respondent Judge Tobolowsky. She

explained that she has signed an order recusing herself and attached a copy of her

recusal order. Because relators have obtained the relief sought with respect to Judge

Tobolowsky’s compliance with rule 18a, we conclude that this issue is now moot.

See Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure

Fund, LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 634–35 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (discussing

mootness doctrine). Lacking jurisdiction over a moot issue, we dismiss relators’

petition to the extent it relates to this issue. See id.

Regarding all remaining issues raised by relators’ petition, we conclude that

relators have failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we

deny relators’ petition as it relates to all remaining issues. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

/Dennise Garcia// 240427f.p05 DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE

–2–