Court Opinion

ID: 9375267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 08:09:38.867955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.090274
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued February 23, 2023

                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                               NO. 01-22-00867-CV
                            ———————————
      IN RE FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., O’BRIEN
        INTEREST, INC., AND SHANNON WILKERSON, Relators

            Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relators, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., O’Brien Interest, Inc., and

Shannon Wilkerson, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial

court’s “Order Denying [Relators’] Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible

Third Party.”1 In their mandamus petition, relators argue that the trial court abused

1
      The underlying case is Roberto Ramirez v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.,
      O’Brien Interest, Inc., Shannon Wilkerson, and Jim McCord, Cause No.
its discretion by denying their motion for leave to designate Jim McCord as a

responsible third party pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter

33. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 33.004.

      On February 9, 2023, relators filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their

petition for writ of mandamus, stating that the relief requested in their petition for

writ of mandamus had effectively been rendered moot because “[i]n his response,”

real party in interest, Roberto Ramirez, “appear[red] to now concede [that] Jim

McCord’s fault must be submitted for apportionment.” Accordingly, relators “seek

to voluntarily dismiss their [p]etition for [w]rit of [m]andamus.” See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a).

      Relators’ motion does not include a certificate of conference, but it states that

“[b]ecause th[e] motion does not prevent [Ramirez] from seeking any relief to which

[he] would otherwise be entitled, [Ramirez’s] consent or conference is not required.”

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require that a party filing a motion in a civil

case include a “certificate stating that the filing party conferred, or made a reasonable

attempt to confer, with all other parties about the merits of the motion and whether

those parties oppose the motion.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5). The rules do not

include an exception to the requirement to confer for situations where the motion

      2019-74906, in the 334th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable
      Dawn Rogers presiding.

                                           2
does not prevent the other parties from seeking relief to which [they] would

otherwise be entitled. However, on February 9, 2023, Ramirez filed a response to

relators’ motion to dismiss, stating that he “does not oppose the motion.” See TEX.

R. APP. P. 10.1(b).

      Accordingly, we grant relators’ motion and dismiss the petition. We dismiss

any pending motions as moot.

                                 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.

                                        3