Court Opinion

ID: 9942478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 07:11:48.164148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:08.906800
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed February 13, 2024

                                    In The
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                             No. 05-23-01219-CV

              IN RE EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3
                           Dallas County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. CC-21-04071-C

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel
                           Opinion by Justice Nowell
      Before the Court is relator’s January 30, 2024 amended petition for writ of

mandamus. Relator challenges respondent Honorable Sally Montgomery’s

February 7, 2023 Order denying relator’s Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non

Conveniens and November 20, 2023 Order denying relator’s Motion to Vacate Order

Denying Its Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens and to Reconsider and

Continue the Stay. Relator also appears to challenge an Order dated May 26, 2023

wherein the Honorable Martin Hoffman denied relator’s motion to recuse Judge

Montgomery.
      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate

remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). To the extent relator seeks mandamus relief against Judge

Montgomery, after reviewing relator’s amended petition and the record before us,

we conclude relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

      To the extent relator seeks mandamus relief against Judge Hoffman, relator’s

amended petition does comply with rule 52.3(a), (d), (f), (h), or (i). Thus, relator’s

amended petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.3(a),

(d), (f), (h), (i); see also In re Jones, Nos. 05-23-00492-CV, 05-23-00493-CV, 2023

WL 4101440, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 21, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Even if we review the amended petition and record before us, we conclude that

relator failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief against Judge Hoffman.

      Accordingly, we deny relator’s amended petition for writ of mandamus. TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

                                         –2–
     Also before the Court is relator’s January 18, 2024 Verified Motion for

Temporary Relief and to Stay the Case Pending Resolution of the Pending

Mandamus Petition. We deny the motion as moot.

231219f.p05                            /Erin A. Nowell//
                                       ERIN A. NOWELL
                                       JUSTICE

                                    –3–