Court Opinion

ID: 9839406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 06:09:11.85663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:59.424003
License: Public Domain

CONDITIONAL GRANT IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and Opinion
Filed September 11, 2023

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00425-CV

     IN RE Z RESORTS MANAGEMENT, LLC; GIVENS-RECORDS
     DEVELOPMENT, LLC; PETER NICHOLAS JR.; AND BONNIE
   NICHOLAS ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN P.J.N. AND J.P.N.,
                          Relators

           Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-05235-A

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel
                         Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
      Two pairs of relators bring this original proceeding: Z Resorts Management,

LLC and Givens-Records Development, LLC (together, the Hotel) and Peter

Nicholas Jr. and Bonnie Nicholas (together, the Paternal Grandparents). The Hotel

is a defendant in the suit below; the Paternal Grandparents intervened as plaintiffs

to represent their young grandchildren, P.J.N. and J.P.N. (the Minor Children).

Together, the Hotel and the Paternal Grandparents seek a writ of mandamus ordering

the trial court: (1) to rule on the Hotel’s Rule 12 Motion to Show Authority (the
Rule 12 Motion) and to vacate its earlier ruling concerning the capacity of Jojo

Parguian (Parguian), the maternal grandfather of the Minor Children, to bring suit

on their behalf; (2) to rule on the Rule 12 Motion and to vacate its earlier ruling

concerning the capacity of Parguian to bring suit on behalf of the estate of his

daughter; (3) to vacate its orders appointing guardians ad litem for the Minor

Children; and (4) to rule on an additional five matters pending in the trial court. We

grant relators’ Joint Petition for Writ of Mandamus (the Petition) in part and the

Hotel’s Supplemental Petition for Writ of Mandamus (the Supplemental Petition);

we conditionally grant the writ as explained below.

                                     Background

      Jacqueline Nicholas (Jacqueline) was shot and killed in a hotel room she and

her husband, Peter Nicholas III (Peter), had checked into earlier that day. The death

was ruled a homicide, and Peter was charged with murder. Along with Peter,

Jacqueline was survived by the Minor Children and her parents. She died intestate,

and as of the filing of the Petition, no estate administration had been initiated. Before

and after Jacqueline’s death, the Minor Children have resided with the Paternal

Grandparents.

                                  Early Proceedings

      On August 23, 2019, Parguian filed suit against the Hotel and Peter for

causing Jacqueline’s death. He pleaded a wrongful death action on behalf of himself

and the Minor Children and a survival action on behalf of Jacqueline’s estate.

                                          –2–
Specifically, he alleged claims against the Hotel for premises liability and against all

defendants for negligence and gross negligence.1

        The Hotel answered and filed a series of pleadings, culminating in its

Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction (the Amended Plea). That Amended Plea

challenged Parguian’s capacity to bring claims on behalf of the Minor Children or

Jacqueline’s estate. The Hotel contended that the Paternal Grandparents were the

Minor Children’s legal guardians and, therefore, were the only ones legally able to

bring suit on their behalf. And as to the estate’s claims, the Hotel argued that

Parguian was not an appointed administrator, a personal representative, or an heir of

the estate. Parguian responded that the Hotel had not proved the Paternal

Grandparents were in fact the legal guardians of the Minor Children. He alleged

further that he had capacity (a) to bring suit on behalf of the Minor Children as their

next friend because no legal guardians had been judicially appointed, and (b) to bring

suit on behalf of the estate because the Minor Children are entitled to pursue the

survival action but are unable to bring suit on their own. On May 17, 2021, the trial

court denied the Hotel’s Amended Plea.

        Meanwhile, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the

Department) initiated a suit affecting the parent–child relationship (the SAPCR) in

the 305th District Court for the benefit of the Minor Children. On November 29,

   1
       Peter answered the lawsuit, but he has played no part in this mandamus proceeding.

                                                  –3–
2021, the presiding judge in that case signed her order appointing the Paternal

Grandparents Joint Managing Conservators of the Minor Children. That order stated

that the Paternal Grandparents have the “sole and exclusive . . . right to represent the

[Minor Children] in legal actions and to make other decisions of substantial legal

significance concerning the [Minor Children].” The Paternal Grandparents then

intervened as plaintiffs in the wrongful death and survival lawsuit in the County

Court at Law No. 1. Their petition incorporated by reference and re-alleged the

identical allegations and claims asserted in Parguian’s Original Petition.

                                 The Rule 12 Motion

      On June 21, 2022, the Hotel filed its Rule 12 Motion to Show Authority (the

Rule 12 Motion). The Rule 12 Motion reiterated that Parguian had not been

judicially appointed to represent either the Minor Children or Jacqueline’s estate. It

referred to the SAPCR order giving the Paternal Grandparents “authority to hire

attorneys and take other actions on behalf of the [Minor Children]” and represented

that they had not hired Van Shaw, Parguian’s counsel, to represent them. The Rule

12 Motion asked the trial court to require Shaw “to appear for hearing, and to show

his authority to prosecute this lawsuit on behalf of the [Minor Children] and the

Estate.”

      In response, Parguian contended that no legal guardian had been judicially

appointed to represent the Minor Children, and he repeated his arguments that he

                                          –4–
was a proper person to represent their claims. He asserted that he had hired Shaw to

represent him, giving Shaw proper authority in this action.

      In its reply, the Hotel stressed that counsel for Parguian was aware of the

SAPCR order and aware that the order granted the Paternal Grandparents the sole

and exclusive right to represent the minors in legal actions. The Hotel stated that it

was submitting a copy of the SAPCR order in camera for the trial court’s review.

      The trial court began hearing the Rule 12 Motion on September 28, 2022.

During the hearing, a dispute arose over whether and how Parguian should receive

a copy of the SAPCR order. The court ruled that Parguian was entitled to receive

and review a copy of the SAPCR order and that any confidentiality concerns should

be addressed by the 305th District Court, which had issued the order. Accordingly,

the court adjourned the hearing to allow the parties to go back to the 305th District

Court to work out any appropriate arrangements, and the judge said she would reset

the hearing after such time.

      On December 16, 2022, the Hotel filed a letter with the trial court enclosing a

redacted certified copy of the SAPCR order and requesting that the previously

recessed hearing be set to resume. Between that date and May 9, 2023, the Hotel

requested the hearing be resumed on multiple occasions, including at least three

                                         –5–
letters filed with the court and directed to the court coordinator. The hearing has not

continued, and the trial court has still not ruled on the Rule 12 Motion.2

                              Appointment of Guardians ad Litem

        On April 19, 2023, the trial court sua sponte signed one order appointing

Melodee Armstrong as the guardian ad litem “to represent the interests of minor

child J.P.N.,” and a second order appointing Carmen Mitchell as the guardian ad

litem “to represent the interests of minor child P.J.N.” The orders do not explain

their bases or identify any particular purpose for the appointments.

        The Hotel filed objections and a plea to the jurisdiction challenging the ad

litem appointments. The Hotel contended that the 305th District Court maintained

“continuing, exclusive jurisdiction regarding appointment of any person with

authority to make legal decisions concerning the minor children.” The Hotel also

objected to the appointment orders because they failed in a number of ways to

comply with rule 173, which governs the appointment of guardians ad litem. The

Paternal Grandparents joined the Hotel’s objections and plea.

        On May 9, 2023, the Hotel filed a letter with the trial court requesting a

hearing on the objections and plea; no hearings have been held or set, and the trial

court has not otherwise ruled on the objections or the plea.

    2
      On June 15, 2023, we ordered a stay of the July 24, 2023 trial date. No other proceedings were stayed
by that order.
                                                   –6–
                                               Discussion

        To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal.

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

proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements. Walker

v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).3

        In their Petition and Supplemental Petitions, relators raise five issues for our

consideration. We address them in turn.

                                         Abuse of Discretion

Relators’ Issue I: The trial court abused its discretion in failing or refusing to require
Van Shaw to show authority to prosecute this case on behalf of the Minor Children
and denying the Hotel’s challenge to Parguian’s capacity to represent the Minor
Children.

        This issue is twofold: challenging both a ruling and a failure to rule on the

issue of capacity to represent the Minor Children. A minor does not have the legal

capacity to employ an attorney or anyone else to watch over her interests. Byrd v.

Woodruff, 891 S.W.2d 689, 704 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, writ dism’d). Minors

“who have no legal guardian” may sue and be represented by a next friend. TEX. R.

CIV. P. 44.

    3
      As a threshold issue, Parguian argues that we lack jurisdiction to consider relators’ petitions. He
contends that relators have not established that they lack an adequate appellate remedy, and therefore, “they
have not invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.” However, the lack of an adequate appellate remedy is an
element of establishing entitlement to mandamus relief, not a criteria for invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court. Our mandamus jurisdiction is governed by statute, and we have jurisdiction to decide this
proceeding. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b)(1).
                                                    –7–
        In this case, Parguian has consistently contended that the Minor Children have

no legal guardian, so he is a proper next friend for them. However, the record

indicates that the Minor Children have had a series of persons empowered to serve

as their legal guardians. Before Jacqueline’s death, both married parents had the right

to make legal decisions on behalf of their children as their natural guardians. See In

re Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC, 459 S.W.3d 565, 572 n.9 (Tex. 2015)

(orig. proceeding) (“A parent thus typically qualifies as a legal guardian for purposes

of Rule 44, and his minor child may not sue by next friend.”).4 After Jacqueline’s

death, Peter retained the right to make legal decisions for his children unless and

until such right was limited or removed by an appropriate court order. See id. When

the Department filed the SAPCR and was initially appointed temporary managing

conservator of the Minor Children, the Department held the right to make legal

decisions for them. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.001(a)(1) (temporary appointment),

§ 153.371(8) (rights of nonparent managing conservator include right to represent

child in legal action and to make decisions of substantial legal significance

concerning child). And when the 305th District Court signed its SAPCR order, the

    4
       While the rules of civil procedure and the Texas Family Code do not define “legal guardian” as the
term is used in rule 44, Bridgestone instructs that the term requires authority to sue on behalf of the minor
in Texas. 459 S.W.3d at 570.

                                                    –8–
Paternal Grandparents were given the exclusive right to represent and to make legal

decisions on behalf of the Minor Children. Id. § 153.371(8).5

        At all times, then, the Minor Children had and have a legal guardian—either

a natural parent or someone appointed by court order—who had and have the right

to make legal decisions on their behalf. Accordingly, rule 44 could not provide

authority for Parguian’s bringing or maintaining suit as their next friend. The trial

court clearly abused its discretion when it denied the Hotel’s Amended Plea. 6

        Because rule 44 does not support Parguian’s capacity to represent the Minor

Children’s interests in this case, the relators’ Rule 12 Motion was an appropriate

procedural tool to help identify the proper representative. Both this Court and the

Texas Supreme Court have used the rule to challenge the capacity of a next friend

to prosecute a case on behalf of a minor. See Urbish v. 127th Jud. Dist. Ct., 708

S.W.2d 429, 432 (Tex. 1986) (orig. proceeding) (reviewing a trial court’s ruling on

a motion to show authority challenging a next friend’s authority to represent a minor

    5
        Parguian argues that the SAPCR order is void for lack of notice to him. That order confirms that the
SAPCR proceeding was initiated by the Department’s Original Petition. See FAM. § 102.003(6) (original
suit may be filed by Department). Chapter 102 lists those persons who are entitled to service of citation on
the filing of a SAPCR suit. See id. § 102.009. Among those listed are a managing or possessory conservator,
a person having possession of or access to the child under an order, a person who was required by law to
provide support for the minors, a guardian of the person or estate of the child, or a prospective adoptive
parent to whom standing had been conferred by a parent. See id. Grandparents are not among those listed.
See id. Parguian has not shown a statutory basis for a claim that he or his attorney were entitled to notice
of the SAPCR suit. Accordingly, we reject his argument that the SAPCR order is void.
    6
      The Hotel’s Amended Plea sought dismissal of all claims brought on behalf of the Minor Children
and the estate. Relators do not seek that relief in this Court. Given the pendency of the Rule 12 Motion,
discussed infra, and the intervention of the Paternal Grandparents who plead those same claims, we
conclude that dismissal of any claims in this mandamus proceeding would be inappropriate.
                                                   –9–
plaintiff); In re B.E.A.R., No. 05-02-01493-CV, 2003 WL 21544507, at *1–2 (Tex.

App.—Dallas July 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reviewing a trial court’s ruling on

a motion to show authority challenging someone’s acting as both next friend and

attorney of a minor).

      Parguian argues that the Rule 12 Motion serves only to relitigate the trial

court’s earlier ruling on the Amended Plea. Because both rulings address Parguian’s

capacity to represent the Minor Children, we agree that some questions could

overlap. But other questions will be new to the issue. The trial court will now have

the SAPCR order and the intervening Paternal Grandparents before it when making

the capacity decision. Moreover, even if circumstances had not evolved with the

signing of the SAPCR order and the intervention of the Paternal Grandparents, the

trial court always retained its plenary power to change its capacity ruling. See In re

Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539–40 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (citing

Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993) (trial court retains

continuing control over its interlocutory orders and has power to set orders aside any

time before final judgment entered)). Accordingly, requiring the trial court to rule

on the Rule 12 Motion is not an empty or redundant directive.

      Consideration of a motion that is properly filed and before the court is a

ministerial act. In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128

(Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig. proceeding)). A trial judge is afforded a reasonable

                                        –10–
time to perform the ministerial duty of considering and ruling on a motion properly

filed and before the judge. In re Rangel, 570 S.W.3d 968, 969 (Tex. App.—Waco

2019, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding)). To obtain mandamus relief on a failure to rule, a

relator must establish that the trial court had a legal duty to rule on the motion, was

asked to rule on the motion, and failed to do so. In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d at 2.

      Here, the Hotel filed its Rule 12 Motion on June 21, 2022. The trial court

started to hear the motion on September 28, 2022, but adjourned the hearing before

any substantive arguments or rulings were made so that all parties could receive a

copy of the SAPCR order at issue. On December 16, 2022, the Hotel notified the

court that the SAPCR issue had been resolved and requested to resume the hearing.

Since that time, the Hotel has repeatedly requested a hearing date from the court.

Although the Hotel did not specifically request a ruling on the motion, a hearing on

the motion was a necessary prerequisite. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 12. Because the Hotel

had been seeking a hearing for nearly six months with a trial date looming, we

conclude that the trial court failed to rule on the motion within a reasonable time

despite its legal duty to do so; that was a clear abuse of the court’s discretion.

                                         –11–
Relators’ Issue II: The trial court abused its discretion in failing or refusing to
require Van Shaw to show authority to prosecute this case on behalf of the Estate of
Jacqueline Nicholas, and abused its discretion in denying relators’ challenge to
Parguian’s capacity to represent the Estate.

      As the first issue did, this second issue asks interwoven questions concerning

a trial court’s ruling and a failure to rule. Here, the issue is whether Parguian is a

proper person to sue the Hotel and Peter on behalf of Jacqueline’s estate. The Hotel

and Paternal Grandparents argue that the trial court abused its discretion in denying

the Amended Plea and refusing to rule on the Rule 12 Motion as those pleadings

relate to representation of the estate. Parguian contends that the Minor Children have

an interest in their mother’s estate but cannot themselves sue, so he is a proper person

to sue on their behalf. To the extent that Parguian claims a right to sue on behalf of

the Minor Children, we have rejected his argument. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 44.

      To the extent that Parguian purports to sue on behalf of the estate itself, the

law is settled. A decedent’s estate is not a legal entity; it may not properly sue or be

sued as such. Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845, 849 (Tex. 2005).

Generally, only the estate’s personal representative has the capacity to bring

a survival claim. Id. at 850. The record establishes that Parguian had not been

appointed as a personal representative of Jacqueline’s estate at the time the court

ruled on the Amended Plea. Under certain circumstances, the decedent’s heirs may

be entitled to sue on behalf of her estate. Id. But Parguian is not Jacqueline’s heir at

law either: the only possible heirs to Jacqueline’s estate are Peter, as her surviving

                                         –12–
spouse, and the Minor Children. See TEX. EST. CODE ANN. §§ 201.002, 201.003. We

conclude, then, that the trial court clearly abused its discretion when it denied the

Amended Plea’s challenge to Parguian’s capacity to bring the survival action in this

case.

        For the same reasons discussed above, we conclude that the trial court also

clearly abused its discretion by failing to rule on this portion of the Rule 12 Motion.

Relators’ Issue III: The trial court abused its discretion when it appointed guardians
ad litem for the minor children, because the Family Court has dominant jurisdiction
regarding such appointments for these children, and in the alternative, the
appointments do not comply with applicable rules.

        Parguian argues that relators failed to preserve any complaint regarding the

appointment of guardians ad litem because the Hotel filed its objections in trial court

mere hours before filing its mandamus petition and because the Paternal

Grandparents did not file their objection until after filing the mandamus petition. We

agree that the trial court should have the first opportunity to rule on the objections.

Accordingly, we overrule relators’ third issue, and we include their objections in our

discussion below of matters that the trial court has yet to rule upon.

                                        –13–
The Hotel’s Issue V: The trial court has abused its discretion in failing or refusing
to hear and decide important pre-trial issues.7

       In its Supplemental Petition, the Hotel contends the trial court has abused its

discretion by failing to rule on five additional matters that have been pending before

the trial court for more than a reasonable length of time. As we discussed above

when considering the Rule 12 Motion, a trial court’s consideration of a motion that

is properly filed and before the court is a ministerial act. In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d at

2. A court does not abuse its discretion unless it was asked to rule on the pending

matter and failed to do so in a reasonable time. Id.

       The Hotel represents that the following matters were filed between June 2022

and May 2023. It has submitted evidence showing that it requested hearings and

rulings on these matters multiple times, as the chart below relates.

                    Pending Matter                                Date Filed           Requests for
                                                                                      Hearing/Ruling

 Hotel’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary                            06.10.22                02.22.23
 Judgment                                                                                  05.09.23
                                                                                           06.28.23

 Dallas County Criminal District Attorney’s                        01.03.23                02.22.23
 Motion for Protective Order and Objections to                                             05.09.23
 Subpoena and Notice of Intention to Take                                                  06.28.23
 Deposition by Written Questions

   7
      We address this issue out of order because it addresses the Hotel’s Supplemental Petition claim of
abuse of discretion.
                                                –14–
 Dallas Police Department’s Motion for In              01.12.23            02.22.23
 Camera Review                                                             05.09.23
                                                                           06.28.23

 Hotel’s Motion to Exclude Craig Rigtrup as an         04.11.23            04.14.23
 Expert Witness                                                            04.18.23
                                                                           04.21.23
                                                                           06.28.23

 Hotel’s and Paternal Grandparents’ Objections         05.05 and           05.09.23
 and Plea in Abatement as to Orders Appointing         05.08.23            06.28.23
 Guardians ad Litem

      When this original proceeding was filed, trial was set in this case for July 24,

2023. Each of these pending matters relates to a matter—whether substantive,

procedural, or evidentiary—that must be resolved well before the beginning of trial.

Two of the matters involve motions by non-parties, whose interests in this case must

be protected by the trial court. “While trial judges have broad discretion to manage

their dockets and conduct business in their courtrooms, this discretion is not

unlimited.” In re Reiss, No. 05-20-00708-CV, 2020 WL 6073881, at *3 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Oct. 15, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing Clanton v. Clark,

639 S.W.2d 929, 930–31 (Tex. 1982)). We conclude that these matters were properly

filed, they have been pending a reasonable time given the circumstances of this case,

relators requested rulings on the matters, and the trial court has failed to rule.

Accordingly, we conclude the trial court has clearly abused its discretion in failing

to rule on these matters.

                                        –15–
                          No Adequate Remedy by Appeal

Relators’ Issue IV: Relators do not have an adequate remedy by appeal.

      To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must establish that it has no

adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135–36. The adequacy

of an appellate remedy is determined by balancing the benefits and detriments of

mandamus. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., 275 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex. 2008) (orig.

proceeding). We have determined that the trial court abused its discretion in two

areas; we address each in terms of the adequacy of relators’ remedy on appeal.

      First, we concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the

Amended Plea’s challenge to Parguian’s capacity to represent the Minor Children

and Jacqueline’s estate in this case. The Texas Supreme Court has stated that

mandamus is appropriate, inter alia, “to preserve important substantive and

procedural rights from impairment or loss” and “to spare private parties and the

public the time and money utterly wasted enduring eventual reversal of improperly

conducted proceedings.” In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136. The Minor Children

have the right to be represented by a party authorized by law to do so, and mandamus

is appropriate if a minor’s representative lacks capacity. See In re Bridgestone, 459

S.W.3d at 577 (conditionally granting petition for writ of mandamus and ordering

trial court to vacate order denying motion to dismiss when minors represented by

persons without authority to sue on their behalf in Texas). The alternative to

mandamus is for this litigation to proceed with an unauthorized representative or

                                       –16–
with two parties claiming to be representatives of the Minor Children. We conclude

that either option would confuse and skew proceedings so as to make any subsequent

remedy by appeal inadequate. See In re Salazar, 315 S.W.3d 279, 287 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2010, orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief “because the failure

to correct the trial court’s abuse of discretion would ‘so skew[ ] the litigation process

that any subsequent remedy by appeal [would be] inadequate.’” (quoting Travelers

Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 595 (Tex. 1996))).

      We have also concluded that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in

failing to rule on the Rule 12 Motion. Parguian relies on cases showing that rulings

on rule 12 motions can have adequate appellate remedies, so mandamus relief is not

always appropriate. However, relators’ Petition is based on the trial court’s failure

to rule, and they lack an adequate remedy by appeal from the trial court’s refusal to

rule on the pending motion. See In re Freeport LNG, LLC, No. 01-21-00701-CV,

2022 WL 2251649, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 23, 2022, orig.

proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Similarly, relators have no adequate remedy

on appeal for the trial court’s failure to rule on the other matters pending before it.

See id.; see also In re Amir-Sharif, 357 S.W.3d 180, 181 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012,

orig. proceeding) (mandamus appropriate when pending matters must fairly be

decided before trial).

                                         –17–
                                       Conclusion

       We conditionally grant relators’ Petition in part and the Hotel’s Supplemental

Petition. We direct the trial court within thirty (30) days of this opinion:

       (1)    to vacate its May 17, 2021 order denying the Hotel’s Amended Plea to
              the Jurisdiction; and

       (2)    to hear and to rule on these pending matters:

                  Hotel’s and Paternal Grandparents’ Rule 12 Motion To Show
                   Authority

                   Hotel’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment

                   Dallas County Criminal District Attorney’s Motion for
                    Protective Order and Objections to Subpoena and Notice of
                    Intention to Take Deposition by Written Questions

                   Dallas Police Department’s Motion for In Camera Review

                   Hotel’s Motion to Exclude Craig Rigtrup as an Expert Witness

                   Hotel’s and Paternal Grandparents’ Objections and Plea in
                    Abatement as to Orders Appointing Guardians ad Litem

       All other relief sought by relators is denied. We are confident the trial court

will promptly comply with our Order of this date. Our writ will issue only if it fails

to do so. When the trial court has confirmed compliance with our Order, we will

issue an order lifting the stay of trial.

                                              /Bill Pedersen, III//
230425f.p05                                   BILL PEDERSEN, III
                                              JUSTICE

                                            –18–