in Re: Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                     COURT OF APPEALS
    EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    EL PASO, TEXAS
    §                  No. 08-14-00292-CV
    IN RE: LINDA S. RESTREPO AND
    CARLOS E. RESTREPO,                               §              ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    Relators.                           §             ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF
    §                     PROHIBITION
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Relators Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo have filed a petition for writ of
    prohibition against the Honorable Carlos Villa, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 5 of El
    Paso County, Texas. Relators have also filed a motion to stay the proceedings in the trial court.
    We dismiss the petition for writ of prohibition and the motion to stay for lack of jurisdiction.
    A writ of prohibition serves a limited purpose. In re Lewis, 
    223 S.W.3d 756
    , 761
    (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2007, orig. proceeding). The purpose of a writ of prohibition is to enable
    a superior court to protect and enforce its jurisdiction and judgments. Holloway v. Fifth Court of
    Appeals, 
    767 S.W.2d 680
    , 683 (Tex. 1989); In re Cap Rock Energy Corporation, 
    225 S.W.3d 160
    (Tex.App.--El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding). The writ is typically used to protect the subject
    matter of an appeal or to prohibit an unlawful interference with the enforcement of a superior
    court’s orders and judgments. 
    Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 683
    . In keeping with the limited
    purpose of the writ of prohibition, an appellate court’s jurisdiction to issue the writ is likewise
    limited. A writ of prohibition is not an independent proceeding brought to prohibit an action, but
    is an ancillary proceeding that is invoked in aid of an appellate court’s jurisdiction that has
    otherwise been properly invoked. See Tex. Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Kirby, 
    137 Tex. 106
    , 
    152 S.W.2d 1073
    , 1073 (1941).         So, absent actual jurisdiction over a pending proceeding, an
    appellate court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition requiring a trial court to
    refrain from performing a future act. See In re Nguyen, 
    155 S.W.3d 191
    , 194 (Tex.App.--Tyler
    2003, orig. proceeding); Lesikar v. Anthony, 
    750 S.W.2d 338
    , 339 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st
    Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding).
    On the date Relators filed their petition and motion to stay, an appeal was pending in
    cause number 08-14-00288-CV, styled Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo d/b/a
    Collectively RDI Global Services and R&D International v. Alliance Riggers & Constructors,
    LTD.    By opinion and judgment issued this same date, we dismissed the appeal for want of
    jurisdiction. The Restrepos have not established that issuance of the writ of prohibition is
    necessary to protect the subject matter of an appeal or to prohibit interference with enforcement
    of an order or judgment of this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition and motion to stay
    for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX.R.APP.P. 52.8(a), 52.10.
    STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice
    November 7, 2014
    Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
    -2-