in Re: KB Home Lone Star LP

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 23, 2006
• Docket: 13-06-00091-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                              NUMBER 13-06-091-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

IN RE: KB HOME LONE STAR LP

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Motion for Emergency Temporary Relief

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION                                   

                         Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

                                 Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam                

On March 3, 2006, relator, KB Home Lone Star LP, filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court in which they allege that on June 9, 2005, respondent, the Honorable Bobby Flores, Presiding Judge of the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, abused his discretion by entering an order cancelling notice of lis pendens upon deposit into Court and that on December 9, 2005, respondent, the Honorable Horacio Peña, Jr., Presiding Judge of the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, abused his discretion by entering an order cancelling notice of lis pendens.

Relator=s petition for writ of mandamus asks this Court to order the respondents to vacate their orders dated June 9, 2005 and December 9, 2005.  In addition, relator filed a motion for emergency relief asking this Court to order a stay of the December 9, 2005  order.  This Court stayed all proceedings in the underlying action and requested a response from the real parties in interest, Santa Clara Development, Ltd., Black Rhino Investments, L.L.C., Enrique S. De la Mora, Erick F. Palomares, Intercontinental Group, L.L.C., and Intercontinental Group Partnership, on March 6, 2006.  The real parties in interest filed their response to the petition for writ of mandamus on March 14, 2006.  In addition to the response, they filed a supplement to the mandamus record.  The relator filed a reply to that response on March 16, 2006, along with a motion to strike the purported supplementation of the mandamus record of the real parties in interest.  The relator=s motion to strike record is DENIED.

Having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response of the real parties in interest, and relator=s reply to response, this Court is of the opinion that the relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief sought.  This Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus and lifts the stay granted on relator=s emergency motion.  The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby DENIED.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 23rd day of March, 2006.