Court Opinion

ID: 9399526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-05 15:11:13.949934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:25.647062
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued June 1, 2023

                                        In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                       For The

                           First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                                NO. 01-23-00226-CV
                             ———————————
    IN RE JAMES ALLEN, ALLAN HAYE, ROBERT L. THOMAS, AND
                  JAMES M. ANDERSEN, Relators

             Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relators, James Allen, Allan Haye, Robert L. Thomas and James M. Andersen

(collectively “relators”), filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial

court’s March 24, 2023 order denying their motion to show authority.1

1
      The underlying case is James Allen, Robert L. Thomas, and Allan Haye v. PCF
      Properties in Texas, LLC v. Elizabeth Thomas, James M. Andersen, and JPMorgan
      Chase Bank, N.A., Cause No. 2020-35780, in the 80th District Court of Harris
      County, Texas, the Honorable Jeralynn Manor presiding.
      Thereafter, relators filed a suggestion of bankruptcy. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1.

As a result, the original proceeding was stayed on April 11, 2023. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 8.2. On May 8, 2023, relators filed a notice that the bankruptcy stay had been

lifted, which we construe as a motion to reinstate the original proceeding. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 8.3(a). We grant the motion, lift the stay imposed on April 11, 2023, and

reinstate the original proceeding on the Court’s active docket.

      Relators have now filed a motion to dismiss the original proceeding, stating

that the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of real party in interest, PCF

Properties in Texas, LLC, and therefore, “[r]elators no longer seek to have their

[petition for] writ [of mandamus] heard before the [C]ourt as the pending

controversy is now moot.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

      Relators’ motion does not include a certificate of conference, but more than

ten days have passed since their motion was filed, and no party has opposed the relief

requested in the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2).

      Accordingly, we grant relators’ motion and dismiss the petition for writ of

mandamus. We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

                                  PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.

                                          2