in Re: Tribo Production Co., LTD, Richard Bowman, and Atasca Resources, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 13, 2004
• Docket: 14-04-00133-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 13, 2004

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 13, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00133-CV

IN RE TRIBO PRODUCTION CO., LTD., RICHARD BOWMAN,

and ATASCA RESOURCES, INC., Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On February 17, 2004, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court.  See Tex. Gov=t. Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  In their petition, relators seek to have this Court compel the Honorable Brent Gamble, presiding judge of the 270th District Court, to vacate his order of January 16, 2004, which granted the real party in interest=s motion to compel arbitration.  Relators also requested that we stay the trial court=s order pending resolution of this petition.  On February 20, 2004, we granted relators= motion and issued an order staying the trial court=s arbitration order dated January 16, 2004, in trial court cause number 2003-50564, styled Tribo Production Co., Ltd., Richard Bowman, and Atasca Resources, Inc. v. Smith Barney, a Division of Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., until final decision on relator=s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this Court.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when a trial court clearly abuses its discretion, either in resolving factual issues or in determining legal principles, and there is no other adequate remedy by appeal.  In re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d 179, 180 (Tex. 2003) Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839‑40 (Tex. 1992).  In determining whether there has been a clear abuse of discretion justifying mandamus relief, the reviewing court must consider whether the trial court=s ruling was arbitrary, unreasonable, or reached without reference to any guiding rules or principles, amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of law.  Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917-18 (Tex. 1985).  When alleging that a trial court abused its discretion in its resolution of factual issues, the party must show the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision.  Id. at 918.  As to the determination of legal principles, an abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly.  Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

We find the petition fails to make the requisite showing entitling relators to mandamus relief.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3.  Accordingly, we deny relators= petition for writ of mandamus.  This Court=s stay order issued February 20, 2004, is lifted.

PER CURIAM

Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 13, 2004.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Guzman.