Court Opinion

ID: 9387820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 06:07:40.710321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.685294
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 11, 2023

                                  S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              No. 05-23-00016-CV

IN RE UMTH GENERAL SERVICES, L.P., UMT HOLDINGS, L.P., UMTH
    LAND DEVELOPMENT, L.P., HOLLIS M. GREENLAW, TODD F.
      ETTER, BEN L. WISSINK, AND CARA D. OBERT, Relators

          Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-09833

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Miskel
                            Opinion by Justice Miskel
      Before the Court is relators’ January 5, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus

wherein relators challenge the trial court’s November 30, 2022 Order Denying

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Also before the Court is relators’ January 5, 2023

Motion to Stay and Request for Expedited Consideration.

      The complained-of order denying the motion to dismiss was signed in the

192nd Judicial District Court by the Honorable Kristina Williams, whose term

expired on December 31, 2022. We abated this original proceeding pursuant to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2 to allow the successor judge, the Honorable

Maria Aceves, to reconsider the challenged order. The parties filed a status report
stating that Judge Aceves had held a hearing to reconsider relators’ motion to

dismiss on January 19, 2023, and then had entered an order declining to reconsider

the motion. We then reinstated this original proceeding.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relators lack an adequate appellate remedy. In

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

proceeding). Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient

record to show they are entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Here, relators did not provide a reporter’s record

from the January 19, 2023 hearing or a statement that no testimony was adduced in

connection with the matter complained at that hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.7(a)(2). Relators also contend that on January 18, 2023, they filed a supplement

to the record for the trial court’s consideration. But relators have failed to file a

certified or sworn copy of the supplement in this original proceeding. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Thus, we conclude relators have failed to meet their burden to

provide a sufficient record.

      Even if these defects did not exist, after reviewing relators’ petition and the

record before us, we conclude that relators have failed to demonstrate entitlement

to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

                                        –2–
        We also deny relators’ motion to stay and for expedited consideration as

moot.

                                             /Emily Miskel/
                                             EMILY MISKEL
                                             JUSTICE

230016F.P05

                                       –3–