Court Opinion

ID: 9895169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-05 07:10:50.003389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:30.844134
License: Public Domain

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed
October 31, 2023.

                                      In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                NO. 14-23-00776-CV

       IN RE GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. AND GREG
                    HOCHHEISER, Relators

                         ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                           WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                              270th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 2017-37325

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On October 24, 2023, relators Graybar Electric Company, Inc. and Greg
Hochheiser filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code
Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this compel
to compel the Honorable Dedra Davis, presiding judge of the 270th District Court
of Harris County, to aside her October 24, 2023 order denying the parties’ joint
motion for an official court reporter or, alternatively, a private court reporter. 1 We
deny the petition.

                                          BACKGROUND

       After learning that the trial court uses a court recorder, the parties filed a joint
motion asking the trial court to appoint an official court reporter or, in the alternative,
permit the parties to employ (at their own expense) a private court reporter who
would serve as the trial court’s official court reporter for the trial. After holding a
hearing, the trial court denied the motion on October 17, 2023.

                                     STANDARD OF REVIEW

       Generally, to be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must establish that (1)
the trial court abused its discretion; and (2) relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.
In re Christianson Air Conditioning & Plumbing, LLC, 639 S.W.3d 671, 681 (Tex.
2022) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a
decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error
of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to
the facts. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302‒03 (Tex. 2016)
(orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379,
382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).                    To establish entitlement to
mandamus relief, a party must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion

1
  On October 25, 2023, real party in interest Buying Power, Inc. filed its “Notice of Non-
Opposition to Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” asking that this court grant relators’
request for relief in the petition, in part, by compelling the trial court to grant the parties’ request
to allow a private court reporter for trial. Real party in interest renewed its request, on October 26,
2023, in a motion for summary disposition.
                                                   2
in that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision. Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839‒40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

                                       ANALYSIS

        The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure allow a trial judge to use a court
recorder instead of a court reporter. Therefore, a trial judge would not abuse its
discretion in denying this motion. The relator contends that the rule of procedure is
inconsistent with the Government Code. At this stage in the litigation, we decline
to rule on that point.

        Relator has not shown noncompliance with the recording rules as set out in
the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 13.1, 13.2. Relator has
not shown that the recording is in accurate or insufficient yet. The trial judge has
promised a daily recording; therefore, the parties will be able to determine whether
or not the recording is accurate early in the trial.

                                     CONCLUSION

        Relators have failed to establish that they are entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny real
party in interest’s motion for summary disposition. We lift our October 25, 2023
stay.

                                    PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Bourliot, and Hassan.

                                            3