in Re Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chariman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chariman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

DecidedOctober 27, 2022

Docket03-22-00419-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in Re Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chariman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas (in Re Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chariman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission 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 Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chariman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00419-CV

In re Public Utility Commission of Texas; Peter Lake, Chariman; Will McAdams, Commissioner; Lori Cobos, Commissioner; and Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators have filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial

court’s communication to the parties that it intends to hold a hearing on the motion of real

party in interest, AMA Communications, LLC d/b/a AMA TechTel Communications, to enforce

the trial court’s temporary injunction. Relators contend that if the trial court proceeds with a

hearing, it will violate the automatic stay of trial-court proceedings while an appeal in the

underlying proceeding is pending. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b) (providing that

certain interlocutory appeals stay all proceedings in trial court “pending resolution of the

appeal”). This Court has issued an opinion and mandate in the underlying matter, 03-21-00597-

CV, and therefore the automatic stay in the underlying proceeding has been lifted. See id.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See In re Kellogg Brown &

Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (“A case becomes moot if a

controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings . . . .”); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a) (“Action on [Original] Petition”). Relators’ motion for emergency

relief is also denied.

__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana

Filed: October 27, 2022

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