eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2015-05

in Re One Gas, Inc. D/B/A Texas Gas Service Co. ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                                  NUMBER 13-15-00209-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ONE GAS, INC. D/B/A TEXAS GAS SERVICE CO.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, One Gas, Inc. d/b/a/ Texas Gas Service Co., filed a petition for writ of
mandamus and an emergency motion to stay in the above cause on April 29, 2015.
Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to vacate an order granting a temporary
injunction which requires relator to, inter alia, remove a gas pipeline from realty before
October 15, 2015.
1 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).
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion for which the relator has
no adequate remedy at law. In re Frank Motor Co.,
    361 S.W.3d 628
    , 630 (Tex. 2012)
(orig. proceeding); In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., LLC,
    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). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus
relief. In re CSX Corp.,
    124 S.W.3d 149
    , 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding). This burden
is a heavy one. Id.; Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig,
    876 S.W.2d 304
    , 305 (Tex. 1994)
(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.,
    LLC, 328 S.W.3d at 888
    ;
    Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840
    . The second requirement for mandamus relief, that the
relator has no adequate remedy by appeal, “has no comprehensive definition” and is
decided on a case-by-case basis. See In re Ford Motor Co.,
    165 S.W.3d 315
    , 317 (Tex.
2005) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
    Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136
    ).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response filed by the real party in interest, MVP Properties, LLC, relator’s reply, and
the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain mandamus
relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
    Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135
    –36. Accordingly, we LIFT
the stay previously imposed by this Court and we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.
2
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). MVP’s “Motion to Reconsider, Vacate, and/or Modify Order
Granting Emergency Stay” is DISMISSED as moot.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
22nd day of May, 2015.
3