Court Opinion

ID: 9377535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 07:08:59.016047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:14.898940
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed March 3, 2023

                                         S  In The
                               Court of Appeals
                        Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                    No. 05-22-01225-CV

   IN RE SUNOCO RETAIL LLC AND DERRICK RAY LEWIS, Relators

            Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-18306

               MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
                   Before Justices Nowell and Goldstein1
                        Opinion by Justice Nowell
       Relators filed a motion for rehearing of our November 18, 2022 memorandum

opinion and order denying relief. We deny the motion for rehearing, vacate our

opinion and order of November 18, 2022, and issue this new memorandum opinion

and order denying relief in their stead.

       Relators’ November 15, 2022 Petition for Writ of Mandamus challenged the

trial court’s November 14, 2022 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

Settlement Amounts and Assess Costs Against Defendant Sunoco Retail, LLC. On

   1
      The Honorable Justice Myers was originally a member of this panel but did not participate in
this opinion because her term expired on December 31, 2022.
original submission, the Court denied relief because relators did not provide a

sufficient record to support their request for mandamus relief.

      Relators moved for rehearing and provided transcripts of hearings that took

place on October 14, 2022, and November 14, 2022. Because relators removed the

technical grounds upon which the Court’s memorandum opinion rested, the Court

requested a response to the motion for hearing and the underlying merits of relators’

petition for writ of mandamus. We now consider the merits of relators’ petition.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relators lack an adequate appellate remedy. In

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

proceeding). After reviewing relators’ petition, the response, relators’ reply, and the

record before us, we conclude that relators have failed to demonstrate a clear abuse

of discretion.

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

APP. P. 52.8(a).

      We also lift the stay issued by this Court’s November 21, 2022 Order.

                                            /Erin A Nowell/
                                            ERIN A. NOWELL
221225F.P05                                 JUSTICE

                                         –2–