In Re Lisa Clonitz v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: April 28, 2026
• Docket: 01-26-00396-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 28, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00396-CV ——————————— IN RE LISA MARIE CLONTZ, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Lisa Marie Clontz, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of

mandamus “challeng[ing] the trial court’s failure to rule on long-pending motions,

including a motion to transfer venue and motion to reinstate.”1 Relator requested

1 The underlying case is In the Matter of the Marriage of Lisa Marie Clontz and Edward John Kuntze III, Cause No. 2023-06691, in the 309th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Linda Dunson presiding. that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to “promptly rule

on [r]elator’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Motion to Reinstate.”

“A trial court is required to consider and rule on a properly filed and pending

motion within a reasonable time.” In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). Consequently, mandamus relief may

issue to compel a trial court to rule on a motion when the trial court does not rule in

a timely fashion. See In re OxyVinyls, LP, No. 01-23-00708-CV, 2023 WL 8938412,

at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 28, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(granting mandamus relief where trial court failed to rule on motion to compel

arbitration seven months after filed and five months after motion was set on trial

court’s submission docket).

However, to be entitled to mandamus relief based on a failure to perform a

ministerial duty, a relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to

perform a non-discretionary act, (2) was asked to perform the act, and (3) failed or

refused to do so. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001,

orig. proceeding). We may not conclude that the trial court has failed or refused to

act if relator does not establish that the trial court was aware of its obligation to act.

See In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662.

Here, relator has included a file-stamped copy of her “Motion to Transfer

Venue” and “Motion to Reinstate and Withdraw Attorney” in her mandamus record.

2 But the record presented to this Court fails to show that the motions have been

presented to, or brought to the attention of, the trial court. Id. (“Showing that a

motion was filed with the court clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was

brought to the trial court’s attention or presented to the trial court with a request for

a ruling.”).

Nor does the mandamus record include any evidence that relator has made a

demand on the trial court to rule on her motions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1)

(requiring relator to file “certified or sworn copy of every document that is material

to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding); see

also In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, orig.

proceeding) (concluding relator was not entitled to mandamus relief where relator

failed to show “that demand ha[d] been made upon [trial court] for action on the

alleged motion filed with the trial court clerk”). While relator’s mandamus record

does include a document titled, “Emergency Request for Hearing by Submission,

Motion for Ruling on Pending Motions, to Compel Performance of Ministerial Duty,

and Application for Temporary Injunction,” there is no indication in the mandamus

record that this document was filed with the trial court, let alone that it was “brought

to the trial court’s attention or presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling.”

In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662.

3 Accordingly, we conclude that relator has failed to establish she is entitled to

mandamus relief, and therefore, the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Gunn, Caughey, and Morgan.