Court Opinion

ID: 9409215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 11:07:44.882833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.497220
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued July 13, 2023

                                        In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                       For The

                           First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                                NO. 01-23-00447-CV
                             ———————————
IN RE MICHAEL B. BELL AND COMMUNITY RV INVESTMENTS, LLC,
                          Relators

             Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relators, Michael B. Bell and Community RV Investments, LLC, filed a

petition for a writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court had failed to perform its

ministerial duty to enter a final judgment following a verdict returned after a

December 2021 jury trial.1 In their mandamus petition, relators requested that the

1
      The underlying case is Bay Area RV Parks, L.L.C. f/k/a Bay Area Utilities, L.L.C.
      v. WGB RV Parks, L.L.C., Judston F. Welling, and Jonathan D. Gibbs, Cause No.
Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to “rule on [r]elators’

Motions for Entry of Judgment and to enter a final judgment upon the jury verdict.”

      On June 26, 2023, real parties in interest, Judston F. Welling and Jonathan D.

Gibbs, filed a letter with the Court stating that “the trial court entered Final

Judgment” on June 21, 2023. Accordingly, real parties in interest stated that relators’

“application for mandamus relief [was] therefore moot.”

      On June 29, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified relators that, based on the

record presented to the Court, it appeared that relators had obtained the relief

requested in their mandamus petition, namely, entry of a final judgment, thereby

rendering relators’ mandamus petition moot. Relators were notified that their

original proceeding for petition of writ of mandamus was subject to dismissal unless

relators filed a written response demonstrating that the proceeding was not moot or

filed a motion to dismiss their petition for writ of mandamus.

      On July 6, 2023, relators filed an “Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Petition for

Writ of Mandamus.” In the motion, relators state that their mandamus petition has

been “rendered moot” by the trial court’s June 21, 2023 final judgment, and

requested that the “Court dismiss the Petition for Writ of Mandamus.”

      2019-32654, in the 113th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable
      Rabeea Sultan Collier presiding.

                                          2
      Relators’ motion includes a certificate of conference stating that real parties

in interest are not opposed to the relief requested in the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P.

10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2).

      Accordingly, we grant relators’ motion and dismiss the petition for writ of

mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.

                                          3