In Re Pathfinder Services, LLC D/B/A Coastal Terminal Services v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 27, 2023
Docket01-22-00963-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re Pathfinder Services, LLC D/B/A Coastal Terminal Services v. the State of Texas (In Re Pathfinder Services, LLC D/B/A Coastal Terminal Services 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 Pathfinder Services, LLC D/B/A Coastal Terminal Services v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Opinion issued April 27, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00963-CV ——————————— IN RE PATHFINDER SERVICES, LLC D/B/A COASTAL TERMINAL SERVICES, JACOB ANSLUM, JILL ANSLUM, DUSTIN DITTMAN, SLEGTE HOND, LLC, CHAD VLASAK, AND MONA VLASAK, Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Pathfinder Services, LLC, doing business as Coastal Terminal

Services, Jacob Anslum, Jill Anslum, Dustin Dittman, Slegte Hond, LLC, Chad

Vlasak, and Mona Vlasak, filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in its “interpretation” and application of the trial

court’s February 18, 2022 temporary injunction order.1

On April 10, 2023, relators filed a “Notice of Withdrawal of Petition for Writ

of Mandamus,” stating that “[b]ased on subsequent orders from the trial court, [the]

bases of their Petition for Writ of Mandamus ha[d] become moot and [relators]

desire[d] to withdraw” their petition. Relators therefore requested that “the [C]ourt

remove [their mandamus petition] from its docket.” We construe relators’ notice of

withdrawal as a motion to voluntarily dismiss their petition for writ of mandamus.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

Relators’ motion does not include a certificate of conference, but more than

ten days have passed since the motion was filed, and no party has opposed the relief

requested in the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2).

Accordingly, we grant relators’ motion and dismiss the petition. We dismiss

any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.

1 The underlying case is Pathfinder Services, LLC v. Jacob Anslum, Jill Anslum, and Dustin Dittman, Cause No. 2021-50845, in the 190th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Beau A. Miller presiding.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re Pathfinder Services, LLC D/B/A Coastal Terminal Services v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pathfinder-services-llc-dba-coastal-terminal-services-v-the-state-texapp-2023.