### NU M BER 13- 09- 0067 4-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ IN RE: DA LLAS NA

TIONA L INSURA NCE COM PA NY

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Vela M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Rel ator , D all as Nat ion al Ins urance Co mpany (“ Dal las Nati onal ”) , f il ed a peti ti on for
w ri t of mandamus and a moti on for temporar y re li ef i n w hic h i t req uest ed th is C our t t o order the respon den t, the Honorab le Noe Gon z alez, presiding judge o f t he 3 70t h District C ourt of Hidalgo County, to r ule on Dallas Nation al’s plea to the jurisdiction and m otion to dism iss filed on J anuar

y 3, 2007, in tr ial co urt c ause number C -8 86- 06- G, sty led Veg a Roofin g, In c. v. Dallas Nationa l Insuran ce Compan y, form erly Dallas Fir e Insu rance Com

pan y, and

Fir st Me rc ur y Insur ance Com

pany . Dal las N ati onal as ser ts that th e t ri al cour

t c onducted a hear ing on t he pl ea and the mot ion on M arch 6, 2007, and t hat i t i s e nti tl ed to mandamus2

re li ef becaus e the respon dent has faile d to ru le on th e pl ea and the mot ion

. W e c oncl ude that Da ll as Nat ion al has not met its burden of prov ing that the tri al cour t c lea rl y abus ed i ts dis creti on i n fail ing to ru le on D all as Nat ion al’ s p lea and moti on; t hus, w e denyi ts peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus and the a cc ompany ing moti on for temporar y reli ef. I. B A CKGRO UND T his dispu te cen ters on th e existence of insurance c o ve ra ge fo r Jose Am paro Alfaro, an emp loyee of Vega Roof ing, Inc

. ( “V ega”) w ho was sev erely and perm ane ntly inj ured on or

aboutF ebr uar

y 23, 2005, dur ing the cons tr uct ion of a resi dence for Jose E

. Garcia. T he record ref lects tha t Vega purchase d a w orkers’ com pen sation and emp loyer’ s li abi li ty pol icy f ro m Da ll as Nat ion al, w hic h w as effect iv e from J une 20, 2004 to J une 20, 2005, and had a $1 mil li on pol icy l imi t. Veg a w as als o co vered from Jan uar y 1, 2005 t o Janu ary 3, 2006 , by a com me rcial g ene ral liability policy(“ CGL”) issued by Fi rst Mercury Ins urance Compan y . The CG L pol icy al so h a d a $ 1 mi ll ion personal i nju ry pol icy l imi t. Veg a al leg ed th at, dur ing the pol icy peri od of

the Dal las N ati onal pol icy , Al faro w as inj ured at t he Garci a j ob s it e and, therefore, Al faro’ s i nju ry w as cov ered by

the Dal las N ati onal pol icy . Veg a s ubseq uentl y fil ed a cl aim w it h D all as Nat ion al, b u t th is c lai m w as deni ed. Veg a al leg ed th at t he Al faro c lai m w as re fused bec a u se Dall as Nat ion al deni ed th e ex is tenc e of a v ali d and enforc eabl e pol icy co v er ing Al faro. On A pr il 11, 2006, Veg a s ued D all as Nat io n a l fo r b reach of contractand for decl arator

y reli ef, seek ing a judg ment that ins urance cov erag e ex is ted for Alfaro under

the
w or kers’ co mpensat ion and emplo yer’ s liabi li ty pol icy i ss ued by

D all as Nat ion al. D all as Nat ion al filed i ts or ig ina l answ er and a moti o n t o t ra nsfer v enue on M ay 12, 2006. On Nov em b e r 1, 20 06, G arci a i nter v ened i n the su it , add ing J. P. M onday , i ndi v idu all y and d/b/a M onday

Bui lde rs and all other unkno w n Monday enti ti es as defendants (t he “ Mo ndayIn a d d itio n to th e u n d e r lyin g s u it in th is c a s e , t h e A lf a r o s f ile d a s e p a r a te n o n - s u b s c r ib e r la w s u it 1 a g a i n s t V e g a a n d th e M o n d a y d e fe n d a n ts i n a s e p a ra te c a u s e a n d c o u rt. 3 d e fendants ”)and all eg ing v ar iou s c auses of act ion per tai nin g to the c onst ru cti on of the
re si dence

. Add it io n a lly , G arci a as ser ted t hat h e i s a thi rd -p arty benefic iar

y on t he under ly ing wor kers’ co mpensat ion and e m p lo yer ’s l iab il ity pol icy and, thus , s ued D all as Nat ion al for breach of contract

. Al faro and hi s w ife, E loi sa Verdin Alfaro, al so int er v ened in the s uit , al legin g t hat t he c ause of his i nju ri es w as attr ibu tabl e to Veg a, t he M onday defendants, and poss ibl y Garci a. 1 Dal las N ati onal fil ed a ple a to the jur is dicti on and a moti on to dis mis s subj ectto it s moti on to transfer

v enue on Ja nuary 3 , 2 0 07. In i ts ple a and moti on, D all as Nat ion al argued th at th e trial court lacked subject -mat ter jurisdiction ov er the ent ire case b ecau se the Tex as W or kers’ Co mpensat ion C ommis si on has ex cl usi v e j ur is dicti on to dete rmi ne wh e t h e r, o n t h e d a t e o f h is in ju ry, A lfa ro wa s co ve re d u n d e r t h e Da ll a s Na t io n a l p o li cy. The tr ial co urt c onducted a hear ing on D all as Nat ion al’ s p lea and moti on on Ma rc h 6, 2007. At t he c oncl usi on of the hear ing , t he tr ial co urt t ook the matter under adv is ement. On J u ly 1 2, 20 07, D all as Nat ion al senta foll ow -u p l etter and a propose d order grant ing the plea and mot ion to the t rial cou rt, re questing t hatt he trial cou rt sig n the order. On D ecember

17, 2007, Dal las N ati onal se nt a sec ond l etter a n d p ro posed order to the tr ial co urt, ag ain req uest ing thatthe tr ial co urt si g n the order

. Fi nal ly , on October 7, 2009, Dal las Na ti o n a l se n t a thi rd l etter and propose d order

to the t ri al cour

t t o be si g ned. Beca use the tr ial courthas not re spond ed to i ts re q uest s for a r uli ng , D all as Nat ion al filed thi s p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamus on D ecember 16, 2009. Pursuantto thi s Cou rt ’s re q uest , re al par ti es- in- int erestVeg a and Garci a eac h fil ed a respo nse to Dallas Nationa l’s petition . In its respon se, Ve ga arg ues th at th e trial court4

has jur is dicti on ov er

the un d e r l y ing di sput e bec ause the i ss ue i s a breach- of-con tracti ss ue, not a n i ss ue i nv olv ing entitl ement to wor kers’ co mpensat ion benefit s. Veg a furt her arg ues that the t ri al cour

t had no “ mini ste ri al duty ” to r ule fav orabl y on Dal las Nati onal ’s pl ea and moti on and that the t ri al cour t’ s a ss erti on of j ur is dicti on does not “c re ate a clear di sr upti on of the order ly

proce ss es of g ov er nment un der the facts present ed i n thi s c ase. ” ( Inter nal q uotat ion s o mitt ed.) In his respo nse, Garcia argues tha t: (1) becau se Vega an d Garcia’s claims a gainst Dal las N ati onal are predi cat ed on th e a b se nce of cov erag e, t he c lai ms are out si de th e jur is dicti on of the Tex as W or kers’ C ompensatio n Div is ion ; ( 2) D all as Nat ion al canno t compl ain aboutthe tr ial court ’s fail ure to ru le becau se itw ait ed near ly two y ears b etw een re q u e st s for

r uli ng s from the tr ial co urt; and ( 3) D all as Nat ion al w aiv ed any r ig ht t o compl ain of the t ri al cour t’ s fai lure to ru le b y n o t o bje cting

. Garci a al so ass erts that the Al faros filed a s eparate n on- subs cr ibe r lawsui t ag ain st Veg a and the M onday defendants “in a s e p a ra t e c a u se an d cou rt,” and th at “Dallas Nation al’s claims of court de lay are dis ing enuous bec ause the parti es had disc uss ed and all ow ed th e under ly ing Al faro l iab il ity cas e to proceed w it h m ini mum int er ferenc e.” D all as Nat ion al filed a repl y respon din g to most o f the arg uments made by Veg a and Garci a; ho w ev er , D all as Nat ion al did not address the sta tus , nor

the ex is tenc e, of the al leg edl y rela ted A lfaro n o n - s u bsc ri ber l aw sui t. II. S TA NDA RD OF R E V I E W A ND A PPLI C A B LE L AW “Manda mu s rel ie f

is an extraordin aryreme dy tha t issues on ly if th e cou rt clearly abuse d i ts dis creti on and the rela tor has no adeq uate re medy by appeal .” In re Sw. Be ll Tel. C o. , 235 S.W .3d 6 19, 6 23 ( Tex . 200 7) ( ci ti n g In r e Enter gy Cor p. , 142 S.W .3d 3 16, 320 ( Tex . 200 4) ). “To show enti tl ement to manda mus reli ef, a rela tor must( 1) sh ow

that ithas no a deq uate re medy at law to re dress the all eg ed har m and (2) the actsoug ht to be5

compel led i s mi nis ter ial and does not i nv olv e a d is creti onar y or j udi ci al deci si on.” In re Br am lett , No. 07-0 9-01 13-CV, 200 9 T ex. Ap p. LEXIS 522 8, at*2 (Te x . App .–A ma rill o July 8 , 2 0 0 9 , o r i g. p ro ce e d in g) (m e m . o p .) (cit in g State ex r el. Young

v. Si xthJu dicial

D is t. Court of Appea ls , 236 S.W .3d 207 , 210 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07); State ex rel. Rosenth al v. Poe , 98 S. W .3d 194 , 19 8 ( T e x. Crim. App. 200 3)). Furthermo re, a relato r must also demonst ra te en titlement t o mandamus reli ef bysh ow ing that“ the d is tr ict c our t ( 1) had a leg al duty

to per form a no n- dis creti onar y act, (2 ) w as ask ed to per form t h e a ct , a nd ( 3) failed o r ref used to do so .” In r e Vi ll ar re al , 96 S.W .3d 708, 710 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2003,
o rig. pro ce e d in g) (ci t i n g O’Conn or v. Fir st Court of Appea ls , 8 3 7 S

. W

. 2 d 9 4 , 9 7 (T e x. 1992) ; In r

e Chavez , 62 S.W .3d 225 , 228 (Te x . App .–A ma rill o 20 01, orig . procee ding)); se e In r e Bl akeney, 254 S.W .3d 659 , 661 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 2 008 , orig. proce edin g)

. T hus, “the pa rty

requesting man dam us relief has the burde n to pro v ide us wi th a reco rd suf f icient t o e s t a b li sh his rig ht to same .” Ex par te B ates , 6 5 S

. W

. 3 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 5 (T e x. Ap p .–Am a rill o 2 0 0 1 , o rig. pro ce e d in g) (cit in g W alk er v. Packer

, 8 2 7 S

. W

. 2 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 7 (T e x. 1992) ); see In r

e Bl akeney, 254 S.W .3d a t 661

. Conside ration of

a mo tion th at is prope rly f iled an d be for e the trial court is a mini ste ri al act , and mandamus may i ss ue to co mpel the t ri al cour t t o act. See Eli Lill

y & Co. v. Marshall , 829 S.W .2d 157, 158 (Tex . 199 2) ; In r e Bl akeney, 254 S.W .3d a t 661 ; se e als o In reBr

am lett , 200 9 T ex. App. LE XIS 5228 , at *3. How ever, th e t ri a l c o u rt h as a re asona ble ti me w it hin w hic h to per form i ts m in ist er ial duty

. See In r e Bl akeney, 254 S.W .3d a t 661; Saf

ety-Klee n Corp. v. Garcia , 945 S.W .2d 2 68, 2 69 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o 1997, or ig . proceed ing ); see als o In reBr am lett , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 5 228, at

* 3. A tr i al c ou rt’ s refu s al t o r ul e on a p en di ng mo ti on w i th i n a rea s on ab l e am ou nto f t i me cons ti tutes a c lea r abuse of dis creti on. See In r e Shr edder C o. , 225 S.W .3d 6 76, 6 796

(T e x. Ap p .– El Pa so 20 0 6 , o rig. pro ce e d in g) (cit in g In re Green we ll , 160 S.W .3d 286, 28 8 (Te x . App .–T exarkana 20 05, orig . procee ding)). W hether a reason abl e ti me has la p se d i s d e p e n dent upon t he ci rc umstan ces of each cas e. In r

e Bl akeney, 254 S.W .3d at 662 . “D ete rmining w hattime p erio d is
reaso nab le is not subject to exact formu lation . . . . M oreo v er, n o b ri gh tl ine sep arate s a reaso nab le time period f rom a n un reaso nab le one .” Id. (cit in g In r e Keeter , 134 S.W .3d 250, 253 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2003, or ig . proceed ing ); In r e Chavez , 62 S.W .3d at 228)

. In
a n a lyzing whe th e r a re a so n a b le p e rio d h a s lap se d , Te xas co u rt s h a ve n o te d th e fo llo wing:

“[A reason abl e ti me to ru le] is dependentupon a my ri ad of cr it er ia, not the least of

w hich is the trial court’s actual knowledge of the m otion , its ov ert re fusal to act on same, the s tate of t he c our t’ s dock et, and t he ex is tenc e of other judici al and adm ini

str ati ve m atter

s which m ust

be addr ess ed fi rs t. Ex par te B ates , 6 5 S. W .3 d 13 3 [, 13 5 ] (T e x. Ap p .–Am a rill o 20 0 1 , o rig. proceed ing ). Sotoom us t th e tr i al c ou r t’ s i nh er en t po wer

to c on tr ol its o wn dock et befa cto re d

in to the m ix

. See Ho v . U niv . of T ex. at Ar li ngton , 984 S.W .3d 6 72, 694- 95 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 1998, pet. deni ed) ( hol din g thata cour t has the inh erent a uthor ity to cont ro l it s o w n doc ket ). ” In r e Bl akeney, 2 5 4 S .W .3 d a t 6 6 3 (quo ti n g In r e Chavez , 62 S.W .3d at 228 -29) (emp hasis
a d d e d ). Fu rt h e rm o re , s in c e t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s p o we r t o c o n t ro l it s o wn d o c k e tis d is c re t io n a ry, a rev iew ing appel lat e c o u rtm a y n ot ar bit ra ri ly i nter fere w it h i t. See E

x p ar te B ates , 65 S.W .3d a t 135

. III . D I S CUS S I ON The par ti es do not dis pute that Dal las Nat ion al’ s ple a and moti on w ere proper ly fil ed and t hat t he tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on Dal las Nat ion al’ s ple a and moti on c onst it utes a mi nis ter ial dut y . In its resp onse , Vega argued th at th e trial court did no t have a ministe rial duty to rule fa vo ra b ly o n Da ll a s Na t io n a l’ s p le a a n d m o t io n . Ho we ve r, t h is a rg u m e n tis n o tp e rs u a s ive becau se w e mustnot re ach the mer it s o f Dal las N ati onal ’s pl ea and moti on or di re ct the tr ial co urt as to how

to ru le on t h e pl ea and moti on. See In r e Bl akeney, 254 S.W .3d a t7

661; O’ Don nil ey v. Golden , 86 0 S. W .2 d 2 6 7 , 26 9 (T e x. Ap p .– T yler 1 9 9 3 , orig. pro ce e d in g) (“W h ile i t is a b a sicp re m ise t h a t a n a p p e lla te c o u rtl a ck s th e p o wer to c o m p e l a tri a l ju d ge to do a par

ti cul ar acti nv olv ing or

req uir ing di sc re ti on on his par t, thi s C our

t i s e mpow ered to order a t ri al jud g e to ex erci se his di sc re ti on i n s ome manner .” ); see als o In reM inn fee , No. 07- 09- 0005- CV , 2009 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 3 32, a t * 2 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo Jan. 16, 2009,
or ig . proceed ing ) (mem. op.) (“ [W ]e canno t tel l a tr ial j udg e how to ru le on moti ons pendi ng before t hem before the t ri al jud g e hi msel f rul es on them.” ). W e the re fore c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt has a mi nis ter ial duty to ru le on D all as Nat ion al’ s p lea and moti on. See Marshall , 829 S. W .2d a t 158 ; In r e Bl akeney, 254 S.W .3d a t 661 ; In reChavez , 62 S. W .3d a t 228 (“ [A]d mitt edl y , t he need to cons ide r and r ule upon a moti on i s n ot a dis creti onar y act.” ); see als o In reBr

am lett , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 5 228, at * 3. T h e re fo re , t he c ru x of Dal las N a t i o n a l ’ s c o mp l a i n ti n i t s p e t i t i o n i s w h e t h e r a re a s o n a b l e t i me h a s l a p s e d fo r t h e tr ial
cour t t o r ule on D all as Nat ion al’ s p lea and moti on. In s uppor

t of i ts cont enti on th at a re asona ble ti me has l apsed for the t ri al cour t t o ru le on it s ple a and moti on, D all as Nat ion al direct s u s t o the three l etters t hat i t s ent t o the tr ial co urt, re q uest ing thatthe tr ial co urt r ule on t he pend ing pl ea and moti on. As noted
ear li er , t he l etters a re date d July 12, 2007, Dec ember

17, 2007, and O cto ber 7, 2009, and each conta ins a prop osed order grant ing Dallas Nation al’s p lea an d mo tion a nd a request for the tr ial cour

t to si g n the propose d order

. Thus, the e v ide nce demonst ra tes thatD all as Nat ion al has re q uest ed a ru li ng from t he tr ial co urt, and t he tr ial co urt has fail ed to r ule

. See In r e Bl akeney, 254 S.W .3d a t 661 ; see als o In reVi ll ar re al , 96 S.W .3d a t 710 ; In re Cha vez , 62 S.W .3d a t 228

. In i t s p e t i t i o n , h o w e v e r , D a l l a s N a t i o n a l re l i e s s o l e l y o n t h e m e re p a s s a g e o f t i me to s uppor

t i ts re q uestfor mand amus reli ef

. N o whe re i n i ts peti ti on does D all as Nat ion al8

address the other

factors a rt ic ula ted i n Inr e Bl ak ene y and In re Chav

ez . See In re Bl akeney, 254 S.W .3d a t 663 ; see als o In reChavez , 6 2 S

. W

. 3 d a t2 2 8 -2 9

. No t a b ly, Dallas Nation al doe s not app rise this Court of the ex istence or the statu s of t h e A lf a ro s’
non -subscriber l awsuit pen ding in ano the r district court. As previ ously ment ione d, Ga rcia
re ferenc es the A lfaros’ non- subs cr ibe r lawsui t in his respo nse to Dal las Nati onal ’s peti ti on and sp e cif ically

note s t hat “ Dal las N ati onal ’s cl aims of cour t del ay are di si ng enuous becau se the p arti es had di sc uss ed and all ow ed th e under ly ing Alfa ro l iab il ity ca se to proce ed wi th minimu m interferen ce.” Furtherm ore, a review of the tran script of

the March 6, 20 07 h earing y ields the followi ng statem ent s: T HE COURT: Beca us e i f c o m p a pplies, then y ou [V ega] are cov ered. Y ou are now

a s ubsc ri ber

. . . .

. . . . TH E C O U R T: So i f y ou g et a d e c [ l a ra t o r y j udg ment] act ion to est abl is h tha t t here is— that y ou subscribe d to com p insuran ce, th en th at case doesn ’tg o forw ard.

. . . . THE CO UR T: Y ou see? And becau se y ou hav e in y our plea d in gs both, I k now w hat you w ere tr

y ing to do , y ou a re tr

y i ng t o s ay , [l ]o ok , w e ha d c om p ins urance , and i f w e don’ t, w e hav e l iab il ity ins urance.

. . . . THE CO UR T: But if y ou hav e c omp i nsu ra n ce , li abi li ty doesn ’tki ck

i n. So w hat w oul d be the pur pose of it ? U nder T ex as law , i f—let ’s as sume you tr ied a c ase ov er

there a n d they

pop y ou, a nd th en y ou g et comp ins urance ov er here, I mean, y ou are no w a subscribe r. But the facts i n tha t case forced you —fo rc ed y ou to hav e to deal w it h a liability claim. So t heir claim would be, I g uess, a breach of contract , al thoug h the y w ere a9 subs criber, the y

end ed u p be ing treated as a non[- ]su bsc ri ber

ov er there . . . .

. . . . TH E C OU R T: I talked t o Judge F l ores , an d he s ai d it did n’tmatte r to him o n e wa y o r the o ther

. . . . I n e e d t o s i td o w n a n d t a l kt o h i m t o s e e h o w he w ants to handl e i t, if in fact w e deci de to transfer cas es back

and forth.

. . . . THE CO UR T: But it seems to me that the most eff ic ien t w ay to do it . . . in a case o f

t his ty pe where the y

are s a yin g, [ l] o o k , we h a ve a li a b il it y cl a im , we w ant— if w e g et hi t w it h dam a ges ov er i n the 139th, as a no n[- ]su bsc ri ber , because the y pro c e e d e d a ga in s tu s a s a n o n [ -] s u b s c ri b e r, well, w h a t i s o u r re me d y ? M i n d y o u , t h at t hey proc e e d e d

. S e e ? T h i s i s n o t

—t h i s i s a — an injured p a rty

procee ding as a non [-]sub scriber. Theyhav e ev er

y r ight to do t hat b ecaus e the y hav e been t old by

y our i nsurance company , you are notco v ered unde r comp.

. . . . THE CO UR T: Bu t o n e o f t h e t h in gs that the T e xas Mu tual Ins ur ance cas e tal ks abouti s, y ou c an det er mine w h e t h e r t h e re i s c o m p c o v e ra g e fo r t e r m s o f a comp b ar

defense. An d s o obv iou sl y the cour ts h a ve broug ht t hat i ss ue up that that coul d be ass erted o v er

there. Now , d o w e w ant t hat is sue? Let’ s a ss um e t h a t t his ca se is tr ied and thi s j ur y finds , t here i s c omp co v e ra ge and liability cov erage, oka y , tha t me ans, hey, hold y our ho rse s o ver there , injured p arty, i f y ou a re co n si dered an employ ee, u nder thi s p oli cy , y ou hav e g ot t o g o ov er

to the c ommis si on.

. . . . [C ounse l for th e Mond ay defend ant s]: W e do n’t ha ve a n i n t e re s ti n e it h e r of the se10 m o t io n s , b u tju s tt o re f re s h t h e Co u rt ’s m e m o ry, w e w ere he re l ast w eek o n a m otion to, in ess ence, co nsol ida te t he c ases [t his case and the A lfaros’ non- subs cr ibe r case]. An d I thi nk that the Cour

t’ s analysi s of thi s is insi g htful i n the sense t h a tI t hink th at on e ma y look at th is cas e—c ases and say , t hey probabl y

need to be togeth er.
THE COU RT: W ell , t hey at lea st need t o be coordin ated by the cour

ts, at the v er

y l east , if not put i n the same cour

t, so that the C our

t c an ta ke noti ce of w hich o ne n ee ds t o be t r i ed fi rs t, i f t he y a re s ev ered

. A nd I t hi nk

t hat t here i s [ s i c ] s om e se v e ra n c e i s s u e s t h a tn e e d t o t a k e p l a c e h e re. And certainly, if

—beca use if comp ap plies, m ost o f t h is go e s a wa y.

. . . . TH E C OU R T: Ok ay . Al l r i g ht

. W el l , l et me talk to my fellow judge do w n the h all a nd upst airs, a nd I wi ll g o ahead and fig ure outw hat t o do w it h i t. Clearly , the a bo v e- me nt i on ed s ta te me nts supp ort Garcia’s cont ent ion th at a seco nd lawsuit
ar is ing out of t h e s a m e s e t of facts and ci rc umstan ces i s p endi ng i n anot her co urt, presumabl y

the 139th Di str ict C our t of H ida lg o C ounty

. Among the my ri ad of factors that an appel lat e c our t rev iews i n det er mini ng w hether
a reaso nab le time has lapse d is “the existence of o the r jud icial a nd a dm inistrative matt ers
w hich m ust be add ressed f ir st.” See In r e Bl akeney, 254 S.W .3d 6 59; see a lso In re Cha vez , 62 S.W .3d at 229. The re cord sug g est s that the tr ial cour t i s d eferr ing j udg ment in thi s c ase unti l the A lfaros’ non- subs cr ibe r lawsuit is resol v ed i n anot her di str ict c our

t. In an y ev ent, b e ca use Dal las N ati onal has not appr is ed th is C our t of the ex is tenc e and sta tus of the rela ted A lfaro l iab il ity ca se pendi ng i n anot her co urt, and bec ause the sta tements made by

the tr ial co urt atthe Ma rch 6 , 2 0 07 hear ing su g g estthatthe tr ial11

cour ts are c oordin ati ng the tw o cas es, w e canno t say thatthe tr ial co urt has cl ear ly abus ed it s d is creti on i n fail ing t o r u le o n a pendin g moti on w it hin a reason abl e ti me. See In re Shr edder C o. , 2 2 5 S

. W

. 3 d a t679; In re Greenwell , 160 S.W .3d a t 288 ; see a lso In re Bl akeney, 254 S.W .3d 6 59; In r e Chavez , 62 S .W .3d at 229 . Furtherm ore, we are reluctant to i nter

fere w it h the tr ial co urt’ s c ontrol ov er i ts ow n doc ket , es peci all y w hen
re lat or has not cl ear ly

i nformed thi s Cou rt as to w hat is transpi ri ng in the t ri al cour ts. See Ex par te B ates , 65 S.W .3d a t 135

. W e not e w it h di sapprov al that the p e ti ti o n for w ri t of mandamus , app endi x , and
re cord fil ed by

D all as Nat ion al w as m isl e adi ng and inc omplet e and faile d to compl y w it h the re q uirements of t he Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re . SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52. 3(k), 52.7( a)

. Therefore, ba sed on th e foreg oin g , w e c oncl ude th at D all as Nat ion al has not show n i tse lf enti tl ed to the extraordin ar y remedy of mandamus re li ef. See In re Sw. Bell Tel. C o. , 235 S.W .3d a t 623 ; Walker , 8 2 7 S

. W

. 2 d a t8 3 7; Ex par te B ates , 65 S.W .3d a t 135; see als o In reBl

akeney, 254 S.W .3d at 661

. Accordin gly , w e den y Dallas Nationa l’s peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus and the a cc ompany ing moti on for temporar y reli ef.

_________

_________

_____ ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice
Di ss enti ng M emora ndum Opi nio n by Jus ti ce Lin da R . Y añez Del iv ered and filed the 17th day of Ma rc h, 20 10.