in Re Wilma Reynolds

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 28, 2017
• Docket: 14-17-00614-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Motion GRANTED AND Order filed July 28, 2017.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-17-00614-CV ____________

IN RE WILMA REYNOLDS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 48170

ORDER

On July 27, 2017, relator Wilma Reynolds (and her attorney Carl Gordan), filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable C.G. Dibrell, Judge of the 300th District Court, in Brazoria County, Texas, to set aside his Order on Request for Sanctions dated July 19, 2017 and his Order denying relator’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc dated July 19, 2017.

1 Relators have also filed a motion for temporary relief, asking our court to stay the Order on Request for Sanctions. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and issue the following order:

We ORDER the Order on Request for Sanctions STAYED until a final decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court.

Relator has also filed a motion, asking our court to compel the court reporter to complete the transcript of the July 19, 2017 hearing by a date certain. Relator states that the court reporter has informed relator that the hearing transcript will be complete sometime next week. Given this assurance, we see no need to compel the court reporter. Such motion is therefore denied.

In addition, the court requests David Reynolds, the real party-in-interest, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before August 11, 2017. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jamison.1

1 Justice Jamison would deny the petition for mandamus, but joins the order to stay the Order on Request for Sanctions and requests a response from David Reynolds only to decide whether mandamus relief is available as to the issue of whether the imposition of immediate monetary sanctions would threaten relator’s ability to pursue an appeal.