in Re Jared Woodfill, Steven F. Hotze, MD F.N. Williams, Sr. and Max Miller

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Jared Woodfill, Steven F. Hotze, MD F.N. Williams, Sr. and Max Miller

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 15, 2014·No. 14-14-00648-CV·Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed August 15, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00648-CV

IN RE JARED WOODFILL, STEVEN F. HOTZE, MD, F.N. WILLIAMS, SR., AND MAX MILLER, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 152nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014-44974

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 11, 2014, relators Jared Woodfill, Steven F. Hotze, MD, F.N. Williams, Sr., and Max Miller filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 273.061; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator ask this Court to compel respondents, Annise D Parker, Mayor of the City of Houston; Anna Russell, City Secretary of the City of Houston; and Houston City Council Members Stephen C. Costello, David W. Robinson, Michael Kubosh, C.O. “Brad” Bradford, Jack Christi, Brenda Stardig, Jerry Davis, Ellen Cohen, Dwight Boykins, Dave Martin, Richard Nguyen, Oliver Pennington, Ed Gonzalez, Robert Gallegos, Mike Laster, and Larry Green, to (1) suspend the enforcement of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO); (2) notify the public of such suspension and of the consequence that no action taken under HERO may be legal or valid; (3) reconsider whether HERO should be repealed in its entirety; and (4) if the City Council does not repeal HERO, then submit HERO to popular vote.

Relators are simultaneously pursuing the same relief in Woodfill, et al. v. Annise D. Parker, et al., No. 2014-44974 in the 152nd District Court of Harris County. Without addressing the merits of relators’ petition, we conclude that mandamus relief is foreclosed because relators have an adequate remedy by appeal after judgment in the pending trial case. See In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (requiring relator to show lack of an adequate remedy by appeal to be entitled to mandamus).

Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jamison.

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

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed August 15, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00648-CV

IN RE JARED WOODFILL, STEVEN F. HOTZE, MD, F.N. WILLIAMS, SR., AND MAX MILLER, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 152nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014-44974

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 11, 2014, relators Jared Woodfill, Steven F. Hotze, MD, F.N. Williams, Sr., and Max Miller filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 273.061; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator ask this Court to compel respondents, Annise D Parker, Mayor of the City of Houston; Anna Russell, City Secretary of the City of Houston; and Houston City Council Members Stephen C. Costello, David W. Robinson, Michael Kubosh, C.O. “Brad” Bradford, Jack Christi, Brenda Stardig, Jerry Davis, Ellen Cohen, Dwight Boykins, Dave Martin, Richard Nguyen, Oliver Pennington, Ed Gonzalez, Robert Gallegos, Mike Laster, and Larry Green, to (1) suspend the enforcement of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO); (2) notify the public of such suspension and of the consequence that no action taken under HERO may be legal or valid; (3) reconsider whether HERO should be repealed in its entirety; and (4) if the City Council does not repeal HERO, then submit HERO to popular vote.

Relators are simultaneously pursuing the same relief in Woodfill, et al. v. Annise D. Parker, et al., No. 2014-44974 in the 152nd District Court of Harris County. Without addressing the merits of relators’ petition, we conclude that mandamus relief is foreclosed because relators have an adequate remedy by appeal after judgment in the pending trial case. See In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (requiring relator to show lack of an adequate remedy by appeal to be entitled to mandamus).

Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jamison.

in Re Jared Woodfill, Steven F. Hotze, MD F.N. Williams, Sr. and Max Miller, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

in Re Jared Woodfill, Steven F. Hotze, MD F.N. Williams, Sr. and Max Miller (in Re Jared Woodfill, Steven F. Hotze, MD F.N. Williams, Sr. and Max Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related