In Re Jennifer Nutt and 3CPL Holdings LLC v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 26, 2025
Docket03-25-00483-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re Jennifer Nutt and 3CPL Holdings LLC v. the State of Texas (In Re Jennifer Nutt and 3CPL Holdings LLC v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Jennifer Nutt and 3CPL Holdings LLC v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00483-CV

In re Jennifer Nutt and 3CPL Holdings LLC

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators Jennifer Nutt and 3CPL Holdings LLC filed a petition for writ of

mandamus complaining of the trial court’s alleged failure or refusal to rule on their pending motion

to dismiss Cause No. 23-2546-C395. Relators argue that a settlement agreement with Real Parties

in Interest requires dismissal, but Real Parties in Interest disagree. To establish an abuse of

discretion for failure to rule, a relator must show that: (1) the trial court had a legal duty to rule on

the motion, (2) she made a demand for the trial court to rule, and (3) the trial court failed or refused

to rule within a reasonable time. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

2001, orig. proceeding) (citing O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97

(Tex. 1992)).

Here, however, the record does not reflect that Relators have demanded a ruling on

their motion, which they filed on March 13, 2025. Accordingly, Relators’ petition fails to establish

that they “made a demand for the trial court to rule” and that the motion has been pending for an

unreasonable length of time. See, e.g., In re Halley, No. 03-15-00310-CV, 2015 WL 4448831, at

*2 (Tex. App.—Austin July 14, 2015) (orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (concluding that delay of less than six months did not constitute unreasonable length of time under “failure to rule” analysis);

In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding)

(determining that six-month delay in ruling would not be unreasonable).

Having reviewed the petition and the record provided, we cannot conclude that

Relators are entitled to the extraordinary relief requested and deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________ Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Theofanis, and Crump

Filed: August 26, 2025

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

Related

In Re Chavez
62 S.W.3d 225 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
In Re Blakeney
254 S.W.3d 659 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
O'CONNOR v. First Court of Appeals
837 S.W.2d 94 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re Jennifer Nutt and 3CPL Holdings LLC v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jennifer-nutt-and-3cpl-holdings-llc-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.