Court Opinion

ID: 9840775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 06:08:07.49746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:30.514712
License: Public Domain

DENY and Opinion Filed September 14, 2023

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00892-CV

  IN RE PRAIRIE LINK CONSTRUCTORS JV; FLUOR ENTERPRISES,
   INC.; AND BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., Relators

          Original Proceeding from the 160th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-13917

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Kennedy
                             Opinion by Justice Smith
      In this original proceeding, relators seek mandamus relief from the trial

court’s August 24, 2023 order denying discovery. Relators have also filed a motion

to stay the underlying proceedings pending resolution of their petition for writ of

mandamus. We deny the petition, and we deny the stay motion as moot.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show 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).

      Here, relators have failed to provide sworn or certified copies of every

document material to their claim for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1) (stating an

appendix must contain “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any

other document showing the matter complained of”), 52.7(a)(1) (requiring a relator

to file with a petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material

to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”).

Relators’ unsworn certification is insufficient to meet Rule 52’s requirements. See

In re Lancaster, No. 05-23-00381-CV, 2020 WL 3267865, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas

May 5, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (attorney’s unsworn declaration wherein

she declared that the facts stated in the declaration were true and correct was

insufficient because it did not invoke penalty of perjury).

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

the petition, we also deny as moot the stay motion.

230892f.p05                                 /Craig Smith//
                                            CRAIG SMITH
                                            JUSTICE

                                         –2–