eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2008-06

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


Menu:

  •   







    NUMBER 13-08-00317-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 Garza and Benavides

    Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (1)



    Relator, Scoggins Construction Company, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on May 20, 2008. Through this original proceeding, relator challenges the trial court's order of April 2, 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 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., 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 945, 2008 Tex. LEXIS 501, *2 (Tex. May 23, 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). 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 30th day of June, 2008.



    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).