Court Opinion

ID: 2925772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:26:52.356526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:04.675658
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-07-00503-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

   IN RE: NABORS DRILLING USA, LP AND CARLOS HERNANDEZ
_____________________________________________________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the 93rd District Court
                      of Hidalgo County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

             Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Benavides
                    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       Relators, Nabors Drilling USA, LP, and Carlos Hernandez, filed a petition for writ of

mandamus with a motion for temporary relief in the above cause on August 15, 2007.

Through the petition, relators asked this Court to vacate an order of the trial court denying

their motion to compel arbitration, and issue a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court

to compel the requested arbitration.
       The Court granted the motion for temporary relief and ordered stayed all

proceedings in the trial court pending further order of this Court, or until the case is finally

decided. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting

temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). The Court further requested,

and received, a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in

interest, Jorge Nava.

       The real party in interest has now filed a motion to dismiss this original proceeding

on grounds that he has filed a demand for arbitration, and accordingly, the petition for writ

of mandamus is moot. Relators have not filed a response to this motion to dismiss, and

more than ten days have elapsed since this motion was filed. See id. 10.3.

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and the real party in interest’s

motion to dismiss this original proceeding, is of the opinion that the motion should be

granted. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this petition for writ of mandamus is

hereby DISMISSED.

                                                   PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 20th day of March, 2008.

                                               2