In Re Juniper Capital II, LP, Juniper Capital III, LP,Juniper PRE Holdings, LLC,Pecos River Exploration Holdings, LLC, Brazos River Exploration, LLC and State Line Exploration Holdings, LLC. v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion issued March 2, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00124-CV ——————————— IN RE JUNIPER CAPITAL II, LP, JUNIPER CAPITAL III, LP, JUNIPER PRE HOLDINGS, LLC, PECOS RIVER EXPLORATION HOLDINGS, LLC, BRAZOS RIVER EXPLORATION, LLC, AND STATE LINE EXPLORATION HOLDINGS, LLC., Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators have filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial

court’s interlocutory order denying relators’ motion to compel arbitration.1 In

1 The underlying case is MLB Oil & Gas Management LLC and MLB Pecos River Exploration LLC v. Juniper Capital II, LP, Juniper Capital III, LP, Juniper PRE Holdings, LLC, Pecos River Exploration Holdings, LLC, Brazos River Exploration, LLC, and State Line Exploration Holdings, LLC, cause number 2023-07326, pending in the 270th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Debra Davis presiding. conjunction with the mandamus petition, relators have filed a motion requesting a

stay of proceedings in the underlying case pending our decision on the petition.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must demonstrate that the trial

court abused its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re

Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004). Here, the interlocutory

order relators seek to challenge by mandamus—the denial of a motion to compel

arbitration—is subject to immediate appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§

51.016 (providing for appeal of interlocutory order denying motion to compel

arbitration under Federal Arbitration Act); 171.098 (providing for appeal of

interlocutory order denying application to compel arbitration under Texas

Arbitration Act). Appeals from interlocutory orders are accelerated. TEX. R. APP. P.

28.1(a).

Relators have filed a notice appeal from the same order challenged in their

mandamus petition and, as in this original proceeding, have filed a similar motion in

the pending accelerated appeal requesting a temporary stay of proceedings during

the appeal. After considering the parties’ briefs, our Court issued an order granting

a temporary stay pending the appeal. Given relators’ pending accelerated appeal

from the challenged order and our granting of a temporary stay pending the appeal,

we conclude that relators have an adequate remedy by appeal.

2 Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition because relators have an

adequate remedy by appeal. See, e.g., In re Weitzel, 2019 WL 347176, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 29, 2019, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus

petition challenging denial of motion to compel arbitration because order is

appealable) (citing In re Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 445 S.W.3d 216, 218-19

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, orig. proceeding)). Relators’ motion for a

stay of proceedings pending our decision on the mandamus petition is dismissed as

moot.

Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.