Opinion
No. 05-11-00188-CV
Opinion issued March 22, 2011.
Original Proceeding from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 09-03025-298.
Before Justices O'NEILL, LANG, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, defendant in the personal injury case below, contends the trial court erred in denying its motion for leave to designate one of the plaintiffs as a responsible third party under section 33.004 of the civil practice and remedies code. A trial court that is presented with a motion for leave to designate a responsible third party and an objection to the motion, as the trial court was here, may either grant the motion or, should the objection to the motion be sustained, grant leave to replead sufficient facts to allege the person's responsibility. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 22.004(g) (West 2008).
The record before this Court does not include an order reflecting the trial court's denial of relator's motion for leave. Relator has provided a copy of the reporter's record of the hearing on relator's motion for reconsideration, but not of the hearing on the motion for leave. The Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that a petition for writ of mandamus must contain "a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of." Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Under this rule, "[i]f the complained-of order is an oral order, the portion of the reporter's record that contains the order must be included in the petition's appendix." In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc., 209 S.W.3d 311, 314 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding).
Relator contends at the hearing conducted on its motion to reconsider the motion for leave to designate a responsible third party, the trial court "announced on the record that she had denied the designation." However, the reporter's record supplied to us in relator's appendix shows only that the court opened the hearing by describing the motion that was before her when she said, "My understanding is, is that this is Defendant's motion to reconsider the court's denial of the responsible third-party motion." Nowhere are we shown a specific oral rendition or written order denying the motion for leave. Because relator has not provided this Court with either a definite oral ruling or a written order to support its petition, relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief requested. In re Red River Constr. Co., No. 05-08-01117-CV, 2007 WL 2447290 at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Aug. 30, 2007, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator's petition for writ of mandamus.