DENIED and Opinion Filed May 22, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-01272-CV

IN RE LA ENERGIA NORTENA, LLC, ADRIAN ZAMARRIPA, 

HUMBERTO NOVOA, AND AZTECA RECORDS, LLC, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-03103

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Nowell

We reinstate this original proceeding. Before the Court are relators’

November 28, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus and March 30, 2023 supplemental 

petition for writ of mandamus wherein relators seek relief from a stay pending 

resolution of a related federal lawsuit. The original petition sought relief from the 

trial court’s order staying the entire case. That order was signed in the 192nd Judicial 

District Court by the Honorable Kristina Williams, whose term expired on December 

31, 2022. 

We abated this original proceeding pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 7.2 to allow the successor judge, the Honorable Maria Aceves, to 
–2–

reconsider the challenged order. We ordered the parties to file a status report and a 

copy of the trial court’s order within ten days of any ruling by the successor judge.

On March 30, 2023, relators filed a supplemental petition stating that Judge 

Jim Jordan had been assigned to reconsider the order and subsequently considered 

new briefing, held a hearing, and issued a new order. Relators provided an 

unauthenticated copy of the purported new order, which shows that the trial court 

partially lifted the stay. Relators argued that the purported modified order mooted 

some but not all of their complaints from the original order and that they still sought 

mandamus relief from the modified order. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to demonstrate that the trial 

court clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal. 

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record 

to show they are entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 

1992) (orig. proceeding). Because the parties in an original proceeding assemble 

their own record, this Court strictly enforces the requirements of rule 52 to ensure 

the integrity of the mandamus record. In re Vasquez, No. 05-15-00592-CV, 2015 

WL 2375504, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 18, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Relators’ record does not comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 52. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2). 

For example, the documents contained in relators’ appendix and record are neither 
–3–

certified nor sworn copies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Certified 

copies may be ordered from the district clerk. See In re Hamilton, No. 05-19-01458-

CV, 2020 WL 64679, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig. proceeding) 

(mem. op.). Documents become sworn copies when they are attached to an affidavit 

or to an unsworn declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the person making 

the affidavit or unsworn declaration has personal knowledge that the copies of the 

documents attached are correct copies of the originals. See id.; see also TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001. Relators included in their petition a 

certification from their attorney that does not invoke the penalty of perjury stating 

that “each and every document included in the appendix constitutes a true and correct 

copy of the original.” We conclude that the attorney’s certification is insufficient to 

make the documents included in the appendix and record sworn copies.

Additionally, relators’ supplemental petition shows that the successor judge 

held a hearing on relators’ motion for reconsideration and issued the modified order 

based on consideration of the motion for reconsideration, the response to that 

motion, the live pleadings on file with the court, and the arguments of counsel. 

Relators, however, did not include in a supplemental appendix or record the motion, 

the briefing, all the live pleadings, or either a properly authenticated transcript of any 

relevant testimony or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with 

the matter complained at the hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1), 
–4–

52.7(a)(2). As a result, we conclude that relators have failed to meet their burden to 

provide a sufficient record.

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. 

221272f.p05

/Erin A. Nowell//

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE