in Re Southern Insurance Company

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 23, 2011
• Docket: 14-11-00604-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed August 23, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00604-CV

IN RE SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

434th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-DCV-186511

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            On July 14, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  Relator complains that respondent, the Honorable James Shoemake, presiding judge of the 434th District Court of Fort Bend County, abused his discretion in failing to grant relator’s Motion to Compel Appraisal and Abate.  Real parties in interest, Jorge and Blanco Barrios, filed a response.

Mandamus will not lie absent a ruling by the trial court that is being challenged.  See Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 556 (Tex. 1990) (for mandamus to lie, the respondent “must have explicitly denied motions intended to compel the deposition . . . .”); and In re Baldridge, No. 14-06-00647-CV, 2006 WL 2167239 (Tex. App.—Houston [14^th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus because relators failed to provide court of appeals a written order, citing Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)(A) and In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding) (concluding that mandamus relief may be based on oral ruling only if the ruling is a “clear, specific, and enforceable order that is adequately shown by the record”)).

The record contains neither a written order nor an oral ruling denying relator’s Motion to Compel Appraisal and Abate.  Relator cites In re Shredder Co., L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.), for its holding the trial court abused its discretion by delaying ruling on a motion to compel arbitration.  The Shredder court, however, conditionally granted writ to issue “only if the trial court fails to rule on the motion to compel arbitration.”  Id. at 680 (emphasis added).  The court expressly offered no opinion on the merits of the motion.  Id.  Relator does not ask us to compel the trial court to rule. 

            Relator has failed to establish it is entitled to mandamus relief.  Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Brown, and Christopher.