in Re Steve Watkins, SMW Projects, Inc., Ronald Winthrop, Winthrop & Associates, Inc., and Larry D. Robinson

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 18, 2016
Docket09-16-00115-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Steve Watkins, SMW Projects, Inc., Ronald Winthrop, Winthrop & Associates, Inc., and Larry D. Robinson (in Re Steve Watkins, SMW Projects, Inc., Ronald Winthrop, Winthrop & Associates, Inc., and Larry D. Robinson) 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 Steve Watkins, SMW Projects, Inc., Ronald Winthrop, Winthrop & Associates, Inc., and Larry D. Robinson, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-16-00115-CV _________________

IN RE STEVE WATKINS, SMW PROJECTS, INC., RONALD WINTHROP, WINTHROP & ASSOCIATES, INC., AND LARRY D. ROBISON

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. B-195,177 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Steve Watkins and SMW Projects, Inc., joined by Ronald Winthrop and

Winthrop & Associates, Inc., and Larry D. Robison, petition for a writ of

mandamus commanding that the 60th District Court of Jefferson County: (1)

transfer Cause No. B-195,177 to Harris County; (2) grant Relators’ motions for a

continuance of their responses to motion for summary judgment; (3) vacate its

order quashing party and expert depositions; (4) order the real parties in interest,

Burrow Global Construction, LLC and Burrow Global, LLC to identify which

1 documents are responsive to which requests for production; (5) vacate its order

sustaining objections by the real parties in interest, Gary Knight and Michael

Burrow, to discovery; and (6) vacate its order setting aside deemed admissions by

Knight and Burrow. After reviewing the petition for writ of mandamus and the

mandamus record that accompanied the petition, we conclude that the relators have

not shown that they are entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co.

of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer,

827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). We deny the petition

seeking mandamus relief without prejudice. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). All

pending motions for temporary relief are denied as moot.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 15, 2016 Opinion Delivered April 18, 2016

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

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

Related

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Steve Watkins, SMW Projects, Inc., Ronald Winthrop, Winthrop & Associates, Inc., and Larry D. Robinson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-steve-watkins-smw-projects-inc-ronald-winthrop-winthrop-texapp-2016.