In Re Michael B. Bell and Community RV Investments, LLC v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Michael B. Bell and Community RV Investments, LLC v. the State of Texas (In Re Michael B. Bell and Community RV Investments, 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.
Opinion
Opinion issued July 13, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00447-CV ——————————— IN RE MICHAEL B. BELL AND COMMUNITY RV INVESTMENTS, LLC, Relators
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relators, Michael B. Bell and Community RV Investments, LLC, filed a
petition for a writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court had failed to perform its
ministerial duty to enter a final judgment following a verdict returned after a
December 2021 jury trial.1 In their mandamus petition, relators requested that the
1 The underlying case is Bay Area RV Parks, L.L.C. f/k/a Bay Area Utilities, L.L.C. v. WGB RV Parks, L.L.C., Judston F. Welling, and Jonathan D. Gibbs, Cause No. Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to “rule on [r]elators’
Motions for Entry of Judgment and to enter a final judgment upon the jury verdict.”
On June 26, 2023, real parties in interest, Judston F. Welling and Jonathan D.
Gibbs, filed a letter with the Court stating that “the trial court entered Final
Judgment” on June 21, 2023. Accordingly, real parties in interest stated that relators’
“application for mandamus relief [was] therefore moot.”
On June 29, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified relators that, based on the
record presented to the Court, it appeared that relators had obtained the relief
requested in their mandamus petition, namely, entry of a final judgment, thereby
rendering relators’ mandamus petition moot. Relators were notified that their
original proceeding for petition of writ of mandamus was subject to dismissal unless
relators filed a written response demonstrating that the proceeding was not moot or
filed a motion to dismiss their petition for writ of mandamus.
On July 6, 2023, relators filed an “Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Petition for
Writ of Mandamus.” In the motion, relators state that their mandamus petition has
been “rendered moot” by the trial court’s June 21, 2023 final judgment, and
requested that the “Court dismiss the Petition for Writ of Mandamus.”
2019-32654, in the 113th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Rabeea Sultan Collier presiding.
2 Relators’ motion includes a certificate of conference stating that real parties
in interest are not opposed to the relief requested in the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P.
10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2).
Accordingly, we grant relators’ motion and dismiss the petition for writ of
mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Michael B. Bell and Community RV Investments, LLC v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michael-b-bell-and-community-rv-investments-llc-v-the-state-of-texapp-2023.