NO. 07-08 -012 6-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D MA RC H 31, 2 008

_________

_________

_________

___ IN RE CITY OF LUBBOCK, T EXAS, RELA T OR

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION Rel ator , t he C ity

of Lubboc k, Tex as, has f il ed a peti ti on for w ri t of m andamus ask ing that w e di re ct the respon dent tr ial courtjudg e to v acat e a “ g ag order” si g ned on Dec ember 7, 20 07, i n a c ase pendi ng before the t ri al cour t. W e w il l deny

rela tor ’s peti ti on. On D ecember

7, 2007, re spond ent sua spont e is sued an order

bar ri ng the par

ti es from co mmunic ati ng w it h medi a outlet s about t he unde rl y ing ca se dur ing i ts pendency . On Ma rc h 13, 2008, rela tor fil ed a moti on in the tri al cour t req uest ing v acat ion of the D ecember 7 order . The moti on c ontai ns an “arg uments and author it ies secti on” throug h w hic h rela tor present s t he s ame co nst it uti onal arg ument i t i ntends thi s C our t t o co n sid er

i n s uppor

t of it s peti ti on for w ri t of manda mus. The tr ial cour t has sc hedul ed an Apr il 4, 2008, hear ing of relator’s mo tion to v acat e. Relato r filed its petition for w rit of man dam us w ith this Court o n Mar ch 26 an d ac co m p a n ie d it with a re que stfo r exp e d it e d he a rin g.2

Ma ndamus is an e xtraordin ar y w ri t t hat w il l not is sue to resol v e di sput es that may be address ed by

othe r re medies . Hol

loway v. Fif th C our t of Appea ls, 767 S. W .2d 6 80, 6 84 (Tex . 1989) (o ri g . proceed ing ). Ma ndamus is not av ail abl e w hen t he rela tor pos ses ses an adeq uate re medy

at law . Wa l

k e r v . Pa c k e r , 8 2 7 S. W .2 d 83 3 , 8 4 0 (T e x. 19 9 2 ) (o rig. proceed ing ). O ur

Supreme C our

t has noted that the t er m “ adeq uate” i n thi s c ontext “ has no c ompre hensi v e defini ti on; it is si mply a proxy for t he c areful bal ance of jur is pr udenti al cons ide ra ti ons that deter m in e w hen app ell ate c our ts w il l use or ig ina l mandamus proce edin gs to review

the ac t io ns of

low er courts.” In re Pru de n t ia l In s . Co . o f

A m. , 148 S.W .3d 1 24, 1 36 ( Tex . 200 4) . As n o te d , re lat or ’s peti ti on s tates thatthe tr ial co urt w il l hear rela tor ’s M ar ch 13 moti on for v acat ion of the c our t’ s D ecember

7 order on A pr il 4. Al thoug h rela tor se eks an ex pedi ted h ear ing of it s p eti ti on i n thi s C our t, nothi ng i n i ts peti ti on s u gges ts t hat a ny ci rc umstance f aci ng the par ti es w il l chang e betw een now and Apr il 4. R ela tor

has not ask ed f o r te m p o ra ry rel ief. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 52. 10. As noted als o, t he record before us ind ic ates re lat or w il l present to the tr ial cour t the same cont enti ons on the meri ts o f its moti on i t i s p re sent ing to us. M oreov er , n o respon se to rela tor ’s peti ti on has been filed . Und er the Rul es of Appel lat e Proc edure appli cabl e to or ig ina l proceed ing s, w ere w e to find mandamus re li ef appro pr iat e, w e w oul d be unabl e i n any ev ent t o g ra nt rela tor

the re li ef itre qu e s t s w i t h o u tre qu e s t in g a re s p o n s e . T e x. R. A p p . P . 5 2 . 4 , 5 2 . 8 (b ). An d , we re we to req uesta respon se in thi s c ase, w e w oul d notex pecti t t o be filed before Apr il 4. Gi v en the “j ur is pr udenti al cons ide ra ti ons” desc ri bed, w e find re lat or pos ses ses an ade quate rem edy at law bypursuing its mot ion set for hea ring before the trial court on Ap ril3

4. Pr udenti al , 148 S.W .3d a t 136 . Acc ordin g ly , rela tor ’s motio n f o r o ra l arg ument, and re lat or ’s peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus , are deni ed.

Per C ur iam