in Re Wendy Hernandez

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 2, 2023
Docket01-22-00658-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Wendy Hernandez (in Re Wendy Hernandez) 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 Wendy Hernandez, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: In re Wendy Hernandez Appellate case number: 01-22-00658-CV Trial court case number: 21-DCV-288227 Trial court: 328th District Court of Fort Bend County Relator, Wendy Hernandez, filed a petition for writ of mandamus arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by entering an August 26, 2022 “Temporary Order,” because (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction “to issue an order of immediate possession of real property,” and (2) the trial court’s August 26, 2022 order is a temporary injunction that is “void on its face” as it “fails to provide for provisions for the posting of a bond.” The August 26, 2022 order challenged by Hernandez was signed by the Honorable Walter Armatys. Judge Armatys has ceased to hold the office of judge of the 324th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2, the Honorable Monica Rawlins is substituted for the Honorable Walter Armatys as the respondent in this original proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(a). Further, this original proceeding for petition of writ of mandamus is abated and remanded to the trial court to allow Judge Rawlins to reconsider the ruling made the basis of State Farm’s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b) (“If the case is an original proceeding under Rule 52, the court must abate the proceeding to allow the successor to reconsider the original party’s decision.”). Within twenty days of the date of this order, the parties are directed to notify the Clerk of this Court of any action taken on reconsideration of the rulings made the basis of Hernandez’s petition and file any orders regarding reconsideration of those rulings in a supplemental mandamus record. The Court will then consider a motion to reinstate or motion to dismiss this proceeding, as appropriate. This original proceeding is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ April Farris___________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __February 2, 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 Wendy Hernandez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wendy-hernandez-texapp-2023.