Court Opinion

ID: 9918655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 14:10:12.77378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:22.483518
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                          No. 04-23-01069-CV

               IN RE UATP MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Adventure Park
                            and UA 1604, LLC d/b/a Urban Air

                                          Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 10, 2024

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

           On December 7, 2023, Relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency

motion to stay proceedings pending this court’s disposition of Relators’ petition for writ of

mandamus. The next day, we granted the emergency motion, stayed all proceedings, and requested

a response from Real Parties in Interest. Having considered the petition and response, we lift our

stay and deny the relief sought.

           To obtain mandamus relief, Relators bore the burden of providing this court with a record

sufficient to establish their right to relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).

Relators complain that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering overly broad discovery in

1
 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020CI17722, styled Eric Crooks and Maryann Crooks, Individually and
as Next Friends of V.C., a Minor v. UATP Management, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Adventure Park; UA 1604, LLC d/b/a
Urban Air; Fun Spot Manufacturing, LLC; and ABEO North America, Inc., pending in the 166th Judicial District
Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.
                                                                                      04-23-01069-CV

its November 27, 2023 ruling, but the record includes only the judge’s notes indicating its intent

to issue grant Real Parties in Interest’s motion to compel discovery.

       As we have previously determined, “a judge’s notes are for his or her own convenience

and form no part of the record.” In re A.W., 384 S.W.3d 872, 873 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012,

no pet.). Further, “a judge’s notes or docket entry are not an adequate substitute for a written order

in a mandamus proceeding.” In re Robins & Morton Group, No. 04-16-00045-CV, 2016 WL

2584526, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 4, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing In re

Rivera, No. 04-12-00025-CV, 2012 WL 219591, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 25, 2012,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)).

       Because the record does not contain an order for this court to evaluate for an abuse of

discretion, Relators have not provided this court with a record sufficient to establish their claim

for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requiring “a certified or sworn copy of any order

complained of”); In re Pesca, No. 04-17-00464-CV, 2017 WL 3270332, at *1 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio Aug. 2, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

       Accordingly, Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); In re Rivera, 2012 WL 219591, at *1. We lift the stay imposed by our

December 8, 2023 order.

                                                  PER CURIAM

                                                 -2-