Case Name: In re JERRY F., Relator
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2009-07-10
Citations: 294 S.W.3d 297
Docket Number: No. 2-09-180-CV
Parties: In re JERRY F., Relator.
Judges: Panel: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON, J.; and DIXON W. HOLMAN (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment).
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 294
Pages: 297–300

Head Matter:
In re JERRY F., Relator.
No. 2-09-180-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.
July 10, 2009.
Edwin J. Seilheimer, Seilheimer Reid, P.C., Granbury, TX, for Relator.
Donald L. Davis, Granbury, TX, for Ad Litem.
Richard Hattox, Law Office of Richard L. Hattox, PC, Granbury, TX, Thomas M. Michel, Griffin, Jay & Michel, LLP, Fort Worth, TX, for Real Parties In Interest.
Panel: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON, J.; and DIXON W. HOLMAN (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment).

Opinion:
OPINION
JOHN CAYCE, Chief Justice.
The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that the petition should be denied. Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Relator's "Unopposed Motion to Abate to Allow for Mediation" is denied as moot.
Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.
LIVINGSTON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
. As the dissent notes, real parties in interest have filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas. Thus, even if we were inclined to grant the petition, to do so now would improperly interfere with the jurisdiction of the supreme court. See Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex. 1990); Doctors Hosp. Facilities v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 750 S.W.2d 177, 179 (Tex. 1988).
. Our denial of the motion as moot in no way hinders or discourages the parties' efforts to mediate, as the dissent suggests. To the contrary, the parties are now free to pursue mediation without the burden of a proceeding pending in this court, in addition to the proceeding pending in the supreme court.