Court Opinion

ID: 9940378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 07:11:50.384508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:48.720959
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed February 7, 2024

                                     S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-24-00021-CV

   IN RE LOGICAL SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A LOGICAL SYSTEMS, LLC,
                           Relator

           Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-01109-B

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                  Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy
                             Opinion by Justice Reichek
      Before the Court are relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for

temporary relief. In its petition, relator seeks to compel the trial court to rule on a

motion to dismiss. In its motion for temporary relief, relator seeks to stay all trial

court proceedings pending our action on the petition.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.

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

proceeding). When the requested relief is to compel a trial court to rule on a motion,

relator must show (1) the trial court had a legal duty to rule on the motion, (2) relator
requested a ruling, and (3) the trial court failed or refused to do so within a reasonable

time. See In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.). It is relator’s burden to provide a record sufficient to establish its right

to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1).

          Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. For example, under Rule 52.7(a)(2), relator was required to file with its

petition either a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any

underlying proceeding or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection

with the matter complained. See id. Relator provided neither despite the record

reflecting two hearings on the motion to dismiss at issue. Even if no testimony was

adduced at these hearings, both hearings appear material to relator’s claim for relief.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Therefore, we also conclude that relator has failed to

carry its burden to provide a record sufficient to establish entitlement to mandamus

relief.

          Additionally and alternatively, notwithstanding these defects, after reviewing

relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to show

that the trial court failed or refused to rule on the motion at issue within a reasonable

time. See In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d at 2. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ

of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

                                           –2–
     We also deny relator’s motion for temporary relief as moot.

                                        /Amanda L. Reichek/
                                        AMANDA L. REICHEK
240021F.P05                             JUSTICE

                                      –3–