1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-14-00321-CV



### _________________
IN RE TOM RICHARD DOYLE JR.

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ Original Proceeding

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Tom Richard Doyle Jr. seeks mandamus relief compelling the judge of the County Court at Law of Liberty County, Texas to act on motions and pleadings relating to the probate of the estate of D oyle’s father. The real party in interest, Charles Richard Jarvis, filed a response, but he has not contested the accuracy of any of the documents that Doyle submitted with his petition. This is the second mandamus petition Doyl e has filed with this Court. In a previous filing, we denied mandamus re lief Doyle requested from the county judge because the judge transferred the contes ted matter to the county court at law. See In re Doyle , No. 09-13-00319-CV, 2013 WL 5276088, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont2 Sept. 19, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Doyle complains that the judge of the county court at law has refused to act on either his request for a temporary injunction or his claims against the administrator. The probate court granted letters of administration to the real party in interest Jarvis. Doyle is the sole bene ficiary of the estate. Doyle filed an application for determination of heirship , a request for a temporary injunction, a formal complaint against the independent administrator for fa iling to provide an accounting or to distribute the estate, and an application to close the estate. See Tex. Est. Code Ann. §§ 359. 006, .101, .102, 361.051, .052, 362.051, .052 (West 2014). 1 Doyle complains that after the case wa s transferred to the county court at law, he repeatedly requested a heari ng but no hearing has been scheduled. 2 The real party in interest does not challe nge Doyle’s claim that he submitted his requests to the trial court and that the trial court has neither ruled on Doyle’s motions nor set the case for trial. This Court cannot prescribe the manner in which the trial court exercises its discretion, but we may order a trial court to exercise its discretion in some manner.

1 Doyle cited to the former Probate Code, but the Texas Estates Code has come into effect since Doyle filed his pleadings.

2 Because he is incarcerat ed, a hearing would be telephonic unless the trial court grants the issuance of a bench warra nt for Doyle’s personal appearance.3 Cooke v. Millard , 854 S.W.2d 134, 135 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). We may compel a trial c ourt to proceed to trial and judgment in

a case. In re Tasby , 40 S.W.3d 190, 191 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its disc retion when it fails to rule on pretrial motions that have been properly presen ted to it within a reasonable time. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia , 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). A trial court has broad discre tion to manage its docket. In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228-29 (Tex. A pp.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Determining what time period is reasonable depends on the circumstances of the case. In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—T exarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); see also In re Smith , No. 07-13-00345-CV, 2013 WL 69091 61, at *2 (Tex. App.— Amarillo Dec. 17, 2013, orig. proceedi ng) (holding a three month delay in selecting a date to hear a motion that has been pending for eight months is unreasonable). In this case, Doyle alleges the administrator has failed to file the required reports and that further delay w ill increase the likelihood that the estate’s assets will be depleted. Jarv is does not controvert Doyl e’s assertion that the case has not been set on a hearing or trial docket, notwithstanding Doyle’s repeated requests.4 Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for a writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to set a heari ng on Relator’s pending motions, rule on Relator’s pending motions, and schedule the case for final disposition. The writ shall issue only if the trial court fails to act promptly in accordance with this opinion.
PETITION CONDIT IONALLY GRANTED. PER CURIAM
Submitted on August 4, 2014 Opinion Delivered September 18, 2014 Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.