Court Opinion

ID: 3076904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:22:39.797611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:32.597296
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-13-00168-CV
                           ____________________

                  IN RE CROSSTEX NGL PIPELINE, L.P.

_______________________________________________________          ______________

                              Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________          _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a petition for writ of mandamus, Crosstex NGL Pipeline, L.P. seeks to

compel the trial court to appoint a commissioner to replace the special

commissioner struck by the real party in interest, Reins Road Farms-1, Ltd., and

deny the real party in interest’s motion to strike the entire panel of special

commissioners. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 21.014 (West Supp. 2012). Relator

argues mandamus relief is necessary to protect its right to an expedited procedure

for exercising eminent domain authority. See Gulf Energy Pipeline Co. v. Garcia,

884 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, orig. proceeding).

                                        1
      After reviewing the mandamus petition and the response filed by the real

party in interest, we conclude Crosstex has not established an abuse of discretion

by the trial court. In addition to the condemnation action, Crosstex pursued in

another court a mandatory injunction action affecting the property at issue here.

See Crosstex NGL Pipeline, L.P. v. Reins Road Farms-1, Ltd., No. 09-12-00563-

CV, 2013 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 23, 2013, no pet. h.). The trial

court did not unreasonably delay acting on pending motions during the accelerated

appeal of the parallel proceeding. Now that an opinion has issued in Crosstex’s

appeal, we presume the trial court will, if requested, proceed with a ruling on any

motions properly before it. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus without prejudice.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                         PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 19, 2013
Opinion Delivered May 30, 2013

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

                                        2