Court Opinion

ID: 9396342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 07:09:07.08918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.429400
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued May 16, 2023

                                        In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                       For The

                            First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                                NO. 01-23-00350-CV
                             ———————————
                       IN RE PLATINUM II, LLC, Relator

             Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relator, Platinum II, LLC, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging

the trial court’s January 18, 2023 “Order Denying [Relator’s] Motion for Leave to

Designate [John Nau and Nau Capital, LLC as] Responsible Third-Parties.”1 Relator

further argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on two other

1
      The underlying case is Kerry Fritz v. Platinum II, LLC and Standard Constructors,
      Inc., Cause No. 2022-32347, in the 333rd District Court of Harris County, Texas,
      the Honorable Brittanye Morris presiding.
motions to designate responsible third parties, including (1) relator’s “Motion to

Designate [Riviera Australia Pty Ltd as a] Responsible Third Party,” filed on January

5, 2023 and set on the trial court’s March 27, 2023 submission docket, and (2)

relator’s “Motion to Designate Seabrook Harbor & Marine, LLC as Responsible

Third Party,” filed on April 6, 2023 and set on the trial court’s April 24, 2023

submission docket.

      In connection with its mandamus petition, relator also filed an “Emergency

Motion for Stay Pending Review,” requesting that this Court “enter an order staying

the underlying suit pending a decision” on the mandamus petition. Relator stated

that the stay is necessary to prevent trial of the underlying litigation, currently set on

the trial court’s trial docket beginning July 10, 2023, from moving forward until the

Court has considered its mandamus petition.

      Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that relator has failed to

establish that it is entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7, 52.8; see

also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). Accordingly, we deny

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). All pending

motions, including relator’s “Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Review,” are

dismissed as moot.

                                    PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.

                                            2