Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00228-CV
04-25-2016
IN RE RICHWAY CARTAGE, INC., RICHWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., AND RICHARDSON STEEL YARD, INC.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum OpinionPer Curiam
Relators, Richway Cartage, Inc., Richway Transportation Services, Inc., and Richardson Steel Yard, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus with a request for emergency relief after the close of the business day on Friday, April 22, 2016. Through the petition for writ of mandamus, relators seek to compel the trial court to rule on their motions for no-evidence summary judgment, filed on December 21, 2015 and heard by the trial court on January 15, 2016. By emergency motion contained within the petition for writ of mandamus, relators seek to stay the trial of the underlying case which is set to begin on Monday, April 25, 2016.
Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy that is not issued as a matter of right. In re Dorn, 471 S.W.3d 823, 824 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding); Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993); Callahan v. Giles, 155 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex. 1941). "Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal." In re Frank Motor Co., 361 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding); see In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law. In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d at 888; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Mandamus will not issue "when the law provides another plain, adequate, and complete remedy." In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609, 613 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135-36). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).
Mandamus may issue to compel a trial court to rule on a motion which has been pending before the court for a reasonable period of time. See In re Shredder Co., L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). To obtain mandamus relief for such refusal, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. See Shredder, 225 S.W.3d at 679; Hearn, 137 S.W.3d at 685; Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228. The relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on the motion. See In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135-36. In terms of a record or appendix, relators have furnished us with a file-stamped copy of the no evidence motions, a notice setting the hearing date for the motions, and copies of rules and cases. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). There is nothing in the limited record before this Court to establish that relators have ever requested a ruling on their no-evidence motions for summary judgment or otherwise notified the trial court of its alleged failure to rule on the motions in a reasonable time. See In re Dimas, 88 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and request for emergency relief are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 25th day of April, 2016.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).