Opinion
NO. 09-20-00177-CV
07-23-2020
IN RE SAMANTHA CRAIG
Original Proceeding 418th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 20-01-00081-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Samantha Craig, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a first amended petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on her motion to conduct the pretrial and the trial of her divorce proceeding remotely through a Zoom videoconference. On July 2, 2010, Relator filed her Motion to Conduct Trial and Pre-Trial Conference via Zoom. The scheduled pretrial conference was set for July 10, 2020. And, according to the Relator's first amended petition, the case is set for trial on July 20, 2020. Relator has failed to inform this Court whether the pretrial conference was held on July 10, 2020, whether Relator presented her Motion to the trial court at the Pre-Trial Conference, and whether the trial court continued the scheduled trial.
Relator also filed a Motion for Emergency Stay and then by letter withdrew that request.
Relator argues that it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court, in the middle of a pandemic where the Texas Supreme Court has issued Emergency Orders to the contrary, to fail to rule on Relator's motion and to require the Relator and counsel to appear at a pretrial conference when remote means are available. Generally, a trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a party's properly filed motion within a reasonable time after the motion is submitted to the trial court or after the party's request for a ruling. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus conditionally granted to compel trial court to conduct a hearing). Relator withdrew her request to stay the pretrial conference, but she has not notified this Court whether the trial court addressed her motion to conduct the July 20 trial via teleconference or re-set the hearing to a date after the Texas Supreme Court's emergency orders expire.
After reviewing the petition and the appendix, we conclude that Craig has not shown that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8. PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM Submitted on July 22, 2020
Opinion Delivered July 23, 2020 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.