Court Opinion

ID: 3068730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-15 23:58:10.294102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:25:08.332646
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                               _________________
                                NO. 09-15-00069-CV
                               _________________

                             IN RE MARK HARDING

________________________________________________________________________

                                Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Mark Harding filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from pre-

trial rulings made by the judge presiding over a case filed in the 253rd District

Court and assigned to the County Court at Law of Liberty County, Texas. In three

issues, Harding contends the trial court abused its discretion (1) by denying a

motion to compel the real party in interest, Bradley A. Butcher, to respond to

Harding’s request for disclosure, (2) by granting a motion for continuance, and (3)

by allowing Butcher to file an amended pleading that changed the case’s discovery

level. Harding asks this Court to compel the trial court to strike Butcher’s

objections to the request for disclosure, strike the plaintiff’s first amended petition,

                                           1
and immediately set the case for trial. On March 10, 2015, the visiting judge

assigned to hear the case signed a scheduling order establishing deadlines for

pleading and discovery and setting the case for trial on November 2, 2015.

      After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude that the

relator failed to establish an abuse of discretion by the trial court for which an

appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of

Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition for

writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                         PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 25, 2015
Opinion Delivered March 26, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                        2