Court Opinion

ID: 9892863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 06:09:16.331963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:36.487835
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed October 17, 2023

                                   S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00867-CV

                     IN RE TOWN OF ADDISON, Relator

           Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-01398-A

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Kennedy
                            Opinion by Justice Reichek
      Before the Court is relator’s September 1, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus.

The suit underlying this original proceeding is an eminent domain case. On March

24, 2023, the trial court issued an order appointing special commissioners to

determine the value of the property at issue and to assess the damages, if any, in

accordance with the law. Relator asks this Court to compel the trial court to provide

relator with the special commissioners’ contact information as required by section

21.014(a) of the Texas Property Code.

      “As a rule, mandamus is not available to compel an action which has not first

been demanded and refused.” Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712, 723 (Tex. 1991)
(orig. proceeding). A trial court is not required to consider a motion that has not been

called to its attention. In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Liverman, 658 S.W.3d 881, 882–83 (Tex. App.—El

Paso 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 74 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding); In re Rangel, 570 S.W.3d 968, 969 (Tex.

App.—Waco 2019, orig. proceeding); In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). The mere filing of a motion does not

establish that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention. Liverman, 658

S.W.3d at 882–83; Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 74; Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662.

      Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to

show it is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)

(orig. proceeding). Although relator filed a motion asking the trial court to provide

the special commissioners’ contact information as an alternative to other relief

requested, the record before us does not show relator called the motion to the trial

court’s attention and requested a ruling. Therefore, relator failed to establish that it

first demanded provision of the contact information and the trial court refused. See

Terrazas, 829 S.W.2d at 723.

                                          –2–
      Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

                                         /Amanda L. Reichek/
                                         AMANDA L. REICHEK
                                         JUSTICE
230867F.P05

                                      –3–