in Re: Scoggins Construction Company, Inc. ( 2008 )

NUMBER 13-08-00548-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE SCOGGINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Scoggins Construction Company, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus
in the above cause on September 19, 2008. Through this original proceeding, relator
challenges the trial court’s order of August 26, 2008, denying relator’s motion for leave to
join third-party defendants and to designate responsible third parties. The Court requested
and received a response from the real party in interest, Mercedes Independent School
District.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which is available only when a trial court has
1
See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinion but
is not required to do so.”); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).
clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)
(citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992)); see also In re Team Rocket,
L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief
sought. See TEX . R. CIV. P. 37, 38; In re Unitec Elevator Servs. Co., 178 S.W.3d 53, 64-66
(Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding); In re Martin, 147 S.W.3d 453, 458-
59 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Arthur Andersen LLP, 121 S.W.3d
471, 485-86 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding); see also In re
Scoggins Constr. Co., No. 13-08-00317-CV, 2008 WL 2721811 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi
June 30, 2008, orig. proceeding [mand. pending]). Accordingly, the petition for writ of
mandamus is DENIED. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this 15th day of October, 2008.
2