in Re PINNERGY, LTD

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 17, 2023
Docket01-23-00022-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re PINNERGY, LTD (in Re PINNERGY, LTD) 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 PINNERGY, LTD, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Pinnergy, Ltd. and LaDonta Sweatt Appellate case number: 01-23-00022-CV Trial court case number: 2022-45392 Trial court: 80th District Court of Harris County On January 13, 2023, relators, Pinnergy, Ltd. and LaDonta Sweatt, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. In the mandamus petition, relators challenged the trial court’s December 27, 2022 order denying the Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non-Conveniens filed by relator, Pinnergy, Ltd., and real party in interest Union Pacific Railroad Company. Also on January 13, 2023, relators filed an “Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings of Trial court,” seeking emergency temporary relief in the form of a “stay of the trial court’s December 27, 2022 order denying the Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non-Conveniens,” as well as a “stay of any discovery or further proceedings in the underlying lawsuit” pending this Court’s resolution of the mandamus petition. Relators allege that the stay is necessary because they “will not have an adequate remedy by appeal if forced to incur the time and expense of discovery in the Harris County suit . . . while simultaneously litigating the suits properly filed in Red River Parish, Louisiana.” Relator’s motion for temporary relief is granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. All proceedings in trial court case number 2022-45392, including, but not limited to, written discovery, are stayed. This stay is effective until disposition of relators’ petition for writ of mandamus or further order of this Court. We further request a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real parties in interest. The response(s), if any, is due to be filed with this Court no later than twenty days following the date of this order. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Amparo Guerra________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___January 17, 2023___

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 PINNERGY, LTD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pinnergy-ltd-texapp-2023.