Opinion
01-24-00397-CV
06-24-2024
In re Houston Pipe Line Company LP, ETC Katy Pipeline, LLC,Energy Transfer Fuel, LP, and Oasis Pipeline, LP
Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County, Trial court case number: 2021-63124.
ORDER
APRIL FARRIS, JUDGE
On May 29, 2024, relators Houston Pipe Line Company LP, ETC Katy Pipeline, LLC, Energy Transfer Fuel, LP, and Oasis Pipeline, LP, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's May 6, 2024 order granting real party in interest XTO Energy Inc.'s motion to compel the production of documents. Relators' petition requested that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to strike certain portions of the May 6, 2024 order, or, in the alternative, to stay consideration of the motion to compel pending relators' plea to the jurisdiction.
The Court has requested that XTO file a response to the petition for a writ of mandamus, due on or before July 1, 2024.
On June 18, 2024, relators filed an "Opposed Motion to File Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus." In their motion, relators request leave from the Court to file an amended mandamus petition challenging the trial court's June 17, 2024 order denying relators' plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement, arguing that the trial court erred in denying their plea to the jurisdiction and that mandamus relief is appropriate. Relators contend that allowing amendment of their currently pending mandamus petition, challenging the trial court's May 6, 2024 order regarding discovery issues, would "promote efficiency" and prevent "duplicative filings . . . addressing the same issues pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction."
XTO filed a response to relators' motion to amend its mandamus petition, arguing that relators seek to "challenge two distinct orders-one a discovery order and the other an order on a plea to the jurisdiction." XTO further contends that the separate orders would require separate analysis, and therefore, efficiency may be best served by two separate mandamus petitions.
Relators' "Opposed Motion to File Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus" is denied. Nothing in this order prevents relators from filing a separate original proceeding challenging the trial court's June 17, 2024 order.
It is so ORDERED.