Court Opinion

ID: 9952957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 06:13:09.417163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:19.885612
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                  No. 06-24-00003-CV

  IN RE MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., AND
        ALEJANDRO GALLEGOS MEJORADO

             Original Mandamus Proceeding

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
       Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., and Alejandro Gallegos Mejorado (collectively Relators)

have petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. Relators ask us to compel the Honorable Angela

Saucier, presiding judge of the 76th Judicial District Court of Morris County, Texas, to vacate

her order denying Relators’ motion for protective order and to grant a protective order

prohibiting any deposition questioning of Mejorado, except as to damages. We deny Relators’

petition for a writ of mandamus.

       The underlying cause of action is a personal injury suit filed against Relators as a result

of a truck/automobile accident. After the real parties in interest sought to depose Mejorado,

Relators filed, in December 2022, a motion for protective order to limit the scope of the

deposition. On May 24, 2023, the trial court heard the parties’ arguments and orally denied

Relators’ motion. The trial court entered its written order denying the motion on June 1, 2023.

Relators filed their petition for a writ of mandamus on January 16, 2024.

       “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not issued as a matter of right, but at the

discretion of the court.” Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig.

proceeding) (citing Callahan v. Giles, 155 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex. 1941) (orig. proceeding)).

“Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable

principles.” Id. (citing Callahan, 155 S.W.2d at 795). “One such principle is that ‘[e]quity aids

the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting

Callahan, 155 S.W.2d at 795). “Thus, a relator who unduly or unreasonably delays filing a

petition for mandamus relief may waive its right to such relief unless the delay is justified.” In

                                                2
re Am. Airlines, Inc., 634 S.W.3d 38, 43 (Tex. 2021) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re

Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672, 676 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding)).

          In Rivercenter Associates, the Texas Supreme Court denied mandamus because of an

unjustified four-month delay by the relator. Rivercenter Assocs., 858 S.W.2d at 367–68; see In

re Salton, No. 04-10-00486-CV, 2010 WL 2782821, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, orig.

proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (mandamus denied because of unexplained seven-month

delay).    In this case, Relators waited seven and one-half months after their motion for a

protective order was denied to file their mandamus petition, and the record does not show an

explanation or justification for the delay. As a result, Relators have not demonstrated that they

diligently pursued their rights. See Rivercenter Assocs., 858 S.W.2d at 367.

          We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

                                              Charles van Cleef
                                              Justice

Date Submitted:         March 11, 2024
Date Decided:           March 12, 2024

                                                 3