Opinion
NO. 02-17-00137-CV
05-04-2017
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
TRIAL COURT NO. 2014-GD-00516-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus, relator's motion for emergency relief, real party in interest's amended response to relator's motion for emergency relief, and relator's reply to the response and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief are denied.
We note relator's representation in its April 25, 2017 mandamus petition that it had "requested the Reporter's Record from the hearing [the result of which relator attacked by mandamus] and will supplement the record when it is received." On April 27, real party in interest filed that reporter's record with its initial response to relator's motion for emergency relief and informed us that relator had requested and received the reporter's record the week before filing its mandamus action. The court reporter's certification is in fact dated April 18, 2017, and shows that relator's counsel had requested the reporter's record. Relator's subsequent reply to real party in interest's response does not challenge or explain that discrepancy. Although we assume that relator's representation to us on April 25 that it had not yet received the reporter's record was inadvertent, we stress the importance of ensuring accuracy in mandamus petitions and any associated motions for emergency relief.
PER CURIAM PANEL: KERR, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. DELIVERED: May 4, 2017