Court Opinion

ID: 9396980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 06:08:30.765268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.647748
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed May 22, 2023

                                        In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-22-01272-CV

      IN RE LA ENERGIA NORTENA, LLC, ADRIAN ZAMARRIPA,
      HUMBERTO NOVOA, AND AZTECA RECORDS, LLC, Relators

            Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court
                              Dallas County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-03103

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
                  Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                             Opinion by Justice Nowell
      We reinstate this original proceeding. Before the Court are relators’

November 28, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus and March 30, 2023 supplemental

petition for writ of mandamus wherein relators seek relief from a stay pending

resolution of a related federal lawsuit. The original petition sought relief from the

trial court’s order staying the entire case. That order was signed in the 192nd Judicial

District Court by the Honorable Kristina Williams, whose term expired on December

31, 2022.

      We abated this original proceeding pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 7.2 to allow the successor judge, the Honorable Maria Aceves, to
reconsider the challenged order. We ordered the parties to file a status report and a

copy of the trial court’s order within ten days of any ruling by the successor judge.

      On March 30, 2023, relators filed a supplemental petition stating that Judge

Jim Jordan had been assigned to reconsider the order and subsequently considered

new briefing, held a hearing, and issued a new order. Relators provided an

unauthenticated copy of the purported new order, which shows that the trial court

partially lifted the stay. Relators argued that the purported modified order mooted

some but not all of their complaints from the original order and that they still sought

mandamus relief from the modified order.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to demonstrate that the trial

court clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record

to show they are entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.

1992) (orig. proceeding). Because the parties in an original proceeding assemble

their own record, this Court strictly enforces the requirements of rule 52 to ensure

the integrity of the mandamus record. In re Vasquez, No. 05-15-00592-CV, 2015

WL 2375504, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 18, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

      Relators’ record does not comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 52. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2).

For example, the documents contained in relators’ appendix and record are neither

                                         –2–
certified nor sworn copies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Certified

copies may be ordered from the district clerk. See In re Hamilton, No. 05-19-01458-

CV, 2020 WL 64679, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.). Documents become sworn copies when they are attached to an affidavit

or to an unsworn declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the person making

the affidavit or unsworn declaration has personal knowledge that the copies of the

documents attached are correct copies of the originals. See id.; see also TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001. Relators included in their petition a

certification from their attorney that does not invoke the penalty of perjury stating

that “each and every document included in the appendix constitutes a true and correct

copy of the original.” We conclude that the attorney’s certification is insufficient to

make the documents included in the appendix and record sworn copies.

      Additionally, relators’ supplemental petition shows that the successor judge

held a hearing on relators’ motion for reconsideration and issued the modified order

based on consideration of the motion for reconsideration, the response to that

motion, the live pleadings on file with the court, and the arguments of counsel.

Relators, however, did not include in a supplemental appendix or record the motion,

the briefing, all the live pleadings, or either a properly authenticated transcript of any

relevant testimony or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with

the matter complained at the hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1),

                                          –3–
52.7(a)(2). As a result, we conclude that relators have failed to meet their burden to

provide a sufficient record.

      Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

                                           /Erin A. Nowell//
221272f.p05                                ERIN A. NOWELL
                                           JUSTICE

                                         –4–