From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Kennedy

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Jan 18, 2006
No. 04-05-00946-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 18, 2006)

Opinion

No. 04-05-00946-CV

Delivered and Filed: January 18, 2006.

Original Mandamus Proceeding.

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 05-08-00133-CVK, styled Michael Kennedy v. David Sauceda, pending in the 81st/218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas. The Honorable Donna Reyes is the presiding judge of the 81st Judicial District Court, and the Honorable Stella Saxon is the presiding judge of the 218th Judicial District Court.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied.

Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Catherine STONE, Justice, Karen ANGELINI, Justice.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Michael Kennedy seeks mandamus relief from the trial court's failure to set his cause for trial. Kennedy states in his petition that he filed a civil lawsuit in the trial court on May 3, 2004, the defendant answered on May 25, 2004, and Kennedy filed a motion requesting a trial setting on May 30, 2004. Attached to Kennedy's petition is one copy of a motion requesting a trial setting that is not file-stamped.

A myriad of factors are influential in determining whether the trial court has unnecessarily delayed a ruling on a motion, including the trial court's actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act on same, the state of the court's docket, the court's inherent power to control its docket, and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which must be addressed. In re Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of providing a record establishing that his motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time. In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 168 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding).

Kennedy has not provided this court with any file-stamped documents to establish the date the various pleadings were filed in his pending cause, any file-stamped correspondence to establish that the trial court has actual knowledge of his motion, or any information regarding the state of the trial court's docket. Accordingly, Kennedy failed to satisfy his burden to provide a record establishing his motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time. Accordingly, Kennedy's petition is denied.


Summaries of

In re Kennedy

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Jan 18, 2006
No. 04-05-00946-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 18, 2006)
Case details for

In re Kennedy

Case Details

Full title:IN RE MICHAEL KENNEDY

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Jan 18, 2006

Citations

No. 04-05-00946-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 18, 2006)