Gilberto Rincones v. Whm Custom Services, Inc. ( 2012 )

NUMBER 13-11-00598-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE DIRECTORY ASSISTANTS, INC.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Vela, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez1
Relator, Directory Assistants, Inc. (“Directory Assistants”), filed a petition for writ
of mandamus in the above cause on September 26, 2011, contending that the trial court
“abused its discretion by appointing an arbitrator in contravention to the Rule 11
agreement entered into between the parties.” Directory Assistants thus seeks to set
aside the order appointing the Honorable Veronica Gonzales as arbitrator. We
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).
conclude that Directory Assistants failed to avail itself of the agreed-upon method for
selecting an arbitrator, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing
an arbitrator. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
I. BACKGROUND
Real party in interest, Rio Grande Plumbing, Inc. (“Rio Grande”), entered into a
“Consulting Contract” with Directory Assistants whereby Directory Assistants provided
consulting services to Rio Grande concerning methods by which Rio Grande could save
on advertising costs. This contract contained an arbitration agreement2:
HOW WE RESOLVE DISPUTES:
Should a dispute arise, we both agree to try to resolve it with the other
party. If we cannot, we both want to resolve it quickly, cost[-]effectively[,]
and informally. To achieve that, we both agree to resolve any dispute
arising out of or relating to this contract through confidential binding
arbitration and agree to try to mutually choose the arbitration service, the
location[,] and which state’s law will govern. If we are unable to come to a
mutual agreement, or if one of us refuses to participate in choosing, the
party filing the demand will have the right to make the choices unilaterally,
as long as the filing party has made a good faith attempt to come to a
mutual agreement. The non-filing party expressly consents to and waives
any and all objections to the choices made.
After Directory Assistants allegedly performed its obligations under the contract and
presented its bill to Rio Grande, Rio Grande attempted to cancel the contract and
2
We express no opinion herein regarding the validity of this arbitration agreement insofar as it
appears to allow the unilateral selection of an arbitrator by one party to the agreement. See, e.g., Lawson
v. Archer, 267 S.W.3d 376, 383–384 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (discussing
McMullen v. Meijer, Inc., 355 F.3d 485, 488, 493–94 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding arbitrator selection provision
unfair and unenforceable when provision granted employer unilateral control over pool of at least five
arbitrators from which employer and employee would then mutually select one); Floss v. Ryan's Family
Steak Houses, Inc., 211 F.3d 306, 314 (6th Cir. 2000) (stating arbitral forum fundamentally unfair when
third-party arbitration services provider hired by employer—and arguably biased for that reason—had
discretion to select pool of potential arbitrators); Hooters of Am., Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933, 938-39 (4th
Cir. 1999) (observing arbitration rules provided mechanism crafted to ensure biased decision-maker when
employer selected one of three arbitrators and also created list from which employee's arbitrator and third
arbitrator were to be selected)).
2
refused to pay on grounds that Directory Assistants breached the contract and was
guilty of fraud, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.
On Tuesday, November 17, 2009, by email, a representative of Directory
Assistants asked Rio Grande about its arbitration choices under the contract:
Please let us know what arbitration service you feel would be equitable to
use, what location would be equitable to conduct the arbitration[,] and
what State’s law should govern this matter. Please let me know this
information on or before November 20th, 2009. If you elect not to
respond, we will make the choices pursuant to the contract.
Rio Grande did not answer these inquiries.
On November 23, 2009, Directory Assistants submitted a “Demand for
Arbitration” with the American Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. Rio Grande responded
by filing suit against Directory Assistants in the County Court at Law Number One of
Hidalgo County, Texas, and requesting a temporary restraining order to halt the pending
arbitration.3 The trial court granted Rio Grande’s request for a temporary restraining
order. Directory Assistants then moved to compel arbitration. After a hearing, the trial
court denied Directory Assistant’s motion to compel arbitration. By order signed on April
22, 2010, the trial court ordered the parties to mediation within sixty days with Robert
Smith serving as mediator.
Directory Assistants subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this
Court seeking to enforce the arbitration agreement in the contract. See In re Directory
Assistants, Inc., No. 13-10-00271-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 6923, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi Aug. 24, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam). Before the
Court reached the merits of the proceeding, however, on June 21, 2010 the parties
3
The respondent in this original proceeding is the Honorable Rudolfo Gonzalez, Judge of the
County Court at Law Number One of Hidalgo County, Texas.
3
entered into a written agreement regarding arbitration which provides, in relevant part,
as follows:
1. The parties agree that the dispute resolution provision of the
Consulting Contract between the parties entitled “How We Resolve
Disputes” is valid and enforceable, and [Rio Grande] waives any
and all claims related to the validity and/or enforceability thereof.
2. The parties agree to submit all claims and causes of action arising
out of the contract and facts made the basis of the above-
referenced lawsuit to binding arbitration with Robert Smith, a
licensed Texas attorney previously appointed by the Court to
conduct mediation. The arbitration shall be conducted in 1/2 day
(not to exceed 5 hours) only at a mutually agreeable date and time
within the next 90 days, and all parties, their counsel and/or
witnesses will attend via videoconference;
3. The Arbitrator, Robert Smith, shall conduct an initial teleconference
with counsel within 2 weeks of the date of this Rule 11 agreement
to understand the nature of the dispute, discuss any procedures
and rules, discovery requests, etc. pursuant to the dispute
resolution procedures set forth in the Consulting Contract, and set
the date for the arbitration at a mutually agreeable date and time;
4. The Arbitrator shall apply Texas law to the substance of the
dispute;
5. [Rio Grande] agrees to pay all arbitration costs with Mr. Smith up to
and not to exceed $2[,]000, based upon Mr. Smith’s agreement to
charge $900/party for a 1/2 day arbitration hearing (not to exceed 5
hours) plus a small admin[istrative] fee of $200. The arbitration
fees shall include the initial conference, any pre-arbitration research
by Mr. Smith, the 1/2 day arbitration (not to exceed 5 hours)
hearing, and post-hearing research, and the written arbitration
award. If there are any charges beyond $2[,]000, the parties will
split the amount evenly. All arbitration costs [are] to be taxed as
“costs”, and shall be awarded to the prevailing party as designated
and/or ordered by Mr. Smith, to the extent the prevailing party has
incurred such costs. In the event [Directory Assistants] is ruled to
be the prevailing party and given a monetary award by Mr. Smith,
$800 of the arbitration costs paid by [Rio Grande] will be credited
towards the award to [Directory Assistants]. In the event that [Rio
Grande] is awarded any monetary amount by Mr. Smith in any
arbitration award, the award shall include all arbitration fees paid by
[Rio Grande];
4
6. [Directory Assistants] shall immediately dismiss and/or withdraw its
appeal of the Court’s Order currently pending with the 13th Court of
Appeals, and shall further dismiss its demand for arbitration with
the American Dispute Resolution Center; and
7. The parties agree to abate the above-referenced civil case currently
pending in Hidalgo County Court at Law No. 1 until the arbitration is
concluded, and shall not seek any further relief in the County Court
except so as to enforce and/or appeal the arbitration award.
This agreement is made without waiver of any substantive right or
defense provided by the Consulting Contract, including, but not limited to
the prevailing party’s right to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to the
Consulting Contract. This agreement is further made without waiver of
Rio Grande Plumbing’s defense that conditions precedent to arbitration
were not met.
The letter agreement was expressly intended to serve as a Rule 11 agreement
under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 11 (providing generally
that agreements between attorneys or parties regarding pending suits will not be
enforced unless “in writing, signed and filed with the papers as part of the record,” or
unless “made in open court and entered of record”). In accordance with the Rule 11
Agreement, Directory Assistants voluntarily dismissed its petition for writ of mandamus.
See In re Directory Assistants, Inc., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 6923, at *1. However,
according to the parties’ pleadings, Smith subsequently “indicated to the parties that he
[was] unable to arbitrate this matter” and recused himself from serving as arbitrator.
On June 3, 2011, Rio Grande then sought relief from the trial court by a motion
entitled “Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and/or Modify Order Denying Motion to Compel
Arbitration, or Alternatively, to Appoint Mediator/Arbitrator.” Through this motion, Rio
Grande sought to have the trial court either order the parties to mediation or withdraw its
5
ruling denying the motion to compel arbitration and appoint an arbitrator to hear the
dispute.
Directory Assistants filed a response to Rio Grande’s Motion and, by a motion
contained in its response, sought enforcement of the parties’ Rule 11 Agreement. This
response and motion for enforcement references various attempts between the parties
to select an arbitrator and a location for arbitration.4
According to the response, Directory Assistants agreed with Rio Grande insofar
as it asserted that the dispute should be submitted to arbitration. However, Directory
Assistants further requested the trial court to enforce the Rule 11 Agreement: “to the
extent [Rio Grande] requests that the Court appoint an arbitrator to consider the claims
at issue in this dispute, [Directory Assistants] argues that any arbitration should be had
pursuant to the terms of the Rule 11 Agreement between the parties.” Directory
Assistants’ motion prayed for the following relief:
[Directory Assistants] moves the Court for an Order Granting [its] Motion
to Enforce Rule 11 Agreement and finding that:
(1) On June 21, 2010, [Rio Grande] and [Directory Assistants] reached an
agreement pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (the “Rule 11
Agreement”); (2) On June 18, 2011, the Rule 11 Agreement was filed with
the Court; (3) The Rule 11 Agreement is valid and enforceable; (4) This
matter is subject to arbitration pursuant to the Rule 11 Agreement; (5) [Rio
Grande] waived any argument that the dispute resolution provision of the
Consulting Contract at issue in this dispute is invalid or unenforceable
pursuant to the Rule 11 Agreement; (6) [Rio Grande] agreed that any
arbitration will take place in Dallas, Texas; (7) [Rio Grande] agreed to pay
all arbitration costs up to $2,000 pursuant to the Rule 11 Agreement,
provided that those costs would be recovered by [Rio Grande] if [Rio
Grande] prevails at the arbitration, and further ordering the parties to
submit to arbitration in accordance with the Court’s findings.
4
We note that the response and motion asserts that the parties had agreed that arbitration take
place in Dallas, Texas; however, the Rule 11 Agreement before this Court contains no such provision.
6
Further, to the extent [Rio Grande] asks the Court to appoint a
mediator, [Directory Assistants] requests that [Rio Grande’s] motion be
DENIED.
Further, to the extent [Rio Grande] asks the Court to appoint an
arbitrator, [Directory Assistants] requests that an arbitrator be appointed in
Dallas, Texas, consistent with the letter and spirit of the parties’ Rule 11
Agreement, and that the arbitration be completed within forty-five (45)
days of the Court’s ruling.
Finally, [Directory Assistants] requests that it be awarded its
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs [in] connection with enforcing the
Rule 11 Agreement, attendance at the hearing regarding the same, and
for such further relief to which Defendant may show itself entitled.
The trial court held a hearing on these issues on August 15, 2011. At the
hearing, Rio Grande gave the trial court a brief summary of the foregoing issues and
asked the court to “reverse its decision [denying arbitration], order the arbitration, and
appoint [a] local arbitrator.” Rio Grande further contended that the Rule 11 Agreement
was invalid. In response, Directory Assistants stated that Rio Grande was “using this
opportunity of Mr. Smith recusing himself to [renege] on several other terms of the Rule
11 Agreement that we had agreed upon,” and that “the only real issue here is venue.”
Subsequent comments by counsel for Directory Assistants address the payment of
arbitration fees and other terms of the Rule 11 Agreement. Counsel for Directory
Assistants further informed the Court:
If the Court is inclined to appoint an arbitrator in McAllen, we’d certainly
like input as to that.
....
We are in agreement that an arbitrator should be appointed in this case;
the question is, who and where? And—and our position is that to the
extent that an arbitrator is appointed, this arbitration should take place
pursuant to the Rule 11 Agreement [that] the parties have already agreed
to . . . .
7
The trial court and counsel for both parties then engaged in a colloquy in which they
each offered potential arbitrators. Directory Assistants, for instance, suggested three
different local arbitrators. The parties argued about the validity of the Rule 11
Agreement based on an alleged revocation of the agreement by Rio Grande before
Directory Assistants filed the agreement as part of the record. Finally, the trial court
informed the parties that he was appointing the Honorable Veronica Gonzalez as
arbitrator in this case. After this oral ruling, Directory Assistants asked the Court for a
ruling on its motion to enforce the Rule 11 Agreement on grounds that the parties had
not “agreed to anything with respect to the Rule 11 Agreement other than that we would
arbitrate” and the agreement contained “several terms.” The trial court stated that
“being that the Rule 11 Agreement was specific to Mr. Robert Smith and that he’s no
longer in the case, I’m going to not enforce the Rule 11 Agreement and have Veronica
Gonzalez take care of it for you.” The parties made no objection to this ruling and the
hearing concluded.
On September 13, 2011, the trial court entered an order (1) revoking its previous
order denying Directory Assistant’s motion to compel arbitration, (2) compelling
arbitration, (3) appointing an arbitrator, and (4) denying Directory Assistant’s motion to
enforce the Rule 11 Agreement. Specifically, the trial court ordered the parties to
“conduct binding arbitration in Hidalgo County, Texas, within the thirty (30) days of the
date of this Order before the Honorable Veronica Gonzales as arbitrator.”
This original proceeding ensued. In its petition for writ of mandamus, Directory
Assistants contends that: (1) because the Rule 11 Agreement is valid, the trial court
has a duty to enforce it; (2) the trial court had no authority to appoint a substitute
8
arbitrator; and (3) mandamus relief is necessary to compel the trial court to withdraw its
order naming a substitute arbitrator. The Court requested and received a response to
the petition for writ of mandamus from Rio Grande. Rio Grande contends that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in appointing an arbitrator because the Rule 11
Agreement did not specify a method to replace Smith following his recusal, and, in the
alternative, the trial court had authority under arbitration law to appoint a substitute.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (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. See In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41
(Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).
A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and
unreasonable as to constitute a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to
correctly analyze or apply the law. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., LP, 164 S.W.3d 379,
382 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839
(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Appeal is an inadequate remedy when a trial court
improperly designates an arbitrator. See In re Serv. Corp. Int'l, No. 10-0155, 2011 Tex.
LEXIS 935, at *3 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011) (orig. proceeding) (publication status pending);
CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 452 (Tex. 2011); In re La. Pac. Corp., 972
S.W.2d 63, 65 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); see also In re D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196
9
S.W.3d 774, 780 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (holding that mandamus is proper to
correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal, as
when a party is erroneously denied its contracted-for arbitration rights under the FAA);
Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (granting mandamus
relief where a party “would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause it
contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to
traditional litigation would be defeated”).
III. ANALYSIS
Directory Assistants contends that the parties entered into a valid Rule 11
agreement that provided for the use of the arbitration procedures defined in the contract
and asserts that the trial court “lacked any basis for refusing to enforce the parties’
agreement and instead naming a substitute arbitrator.” Directory Assistants requests
that we direct the trial court to withdraw its order naming a substitute arbitrator and to
allow the parties to select their own substitute arbitrator and, if they are unable to agree,
to allow Directory Assistants to name the substitute arbitrator in accordance with the
contract and the Rule 11 agreement.
Rio Grande requested appointment of an arbitrator under section 5 of the Federal
Arbitration Act. Section 5 of the FAA explicitly permits a trial court to appoint an
arbitrator under certain circumstances. 9 U.S.C. § 5; see CMH Homes v. Perez, 340
S.W.3d 444, 449 (Tex. 2011); compare TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 171.041
(West 2011) (allowing a court to appoint an arbitrator if (1) the agreement to arbitrate
does not specify a method of appointment; (2) the agreed method fails or cannot be
10
followed; or (3) an appointed arbitrator fails or is unable to act and a successor has not
been appointed). Section 5 of the FAA provides:
If in the agreement provision be made for a method of naming or
appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire, such method shall be
followed; but if no method be provided therein, or if a method be provided
and any party thereto shall fail to avail himself of such method, or if for any
other reason there shall be a lapse in the naming of an arbitrator or
arbitrators or umpire, or in filling a vacancy, then upon the application of
either party to the controversy the court shall designate and appoint an
arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may require, who shall act
under the said agreement with the same force and effect as if he or they
had been specifically named therein . . . .
9 U.S.C. § 5. Thus, if the arbitration agreement specifies a method for selecting an
arbitrator, the parties must follow that method. Id.; see CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at
449. However, if the agreed-upon method breaks down and there is a lapse in
appointing an arbitrator, the parties may petition the trial court to appoint an arbitrator. 9
U.S.C. § 5; see CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 449; In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d
749, 757 (Tex. 2001) (orig. proceeding) (stating that the FAA permits the trial court to
choose an alternate set of arbitrators).
The trial court is permitted to appoint an arbitrator only if one or both of the
parties “fail[s] to avail” itself of the agreed-upon arbitrator selection method, or there is a
“lapse” in the selection of an arbitrator. 9 U.S.C. § 5; see In re Serv. Corp. Int'l, 2011
Tex. LEXIS 935, at **4–6. The section 5 substitution process triggered by the “fail to
avail” and “lapse” language of the FAA should be invoked by the trial court when there
is some “mechanical breakdown in the arbitrator selection process” or “one of the
parties refuses to comply, thereby delaying arbitration indefinitely.” In re La. Pac. Corp.,
972 S.W.2d at 64–65 (citing In re Salomon Inc., 68 F.3d 554, 560 (2d Cir. 1995)); see In
re Serv. Corp. Int'l, 2011 Tex. LEXIS 935, at **4–6; Royce Homes, L.P. v. Bates, 315
11
S.W.3d 77, 89 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (“Here, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion by appointing an arbitrator because the record reflects that there
was a mechanical breakdown in the process of appointing CAS as arbitrator.”); In re
Brock Specialty Servs., Ltd., 286 S.W.3d 649, 656 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009,
orig. proceeding) (applying section 5 of the FAA to allow the trial court to choose an
alternate arbitrator where the arbitrator specified by contract was no longer in
existence). When a contract provides consensual methods for appointment of an
arbitrator, the court must allow the parties sufficient time to utilize the contractual
method before intervening to appoint an arbitrator. See In re Serv. Corp. Int'l, 2011 Tex.
LEXIS 935, at *8.
In the instant case, the contract signed by Directory Assistants and Rio Grande
provided that they “agree to try to mutually choose the arbitration service, the location[,]
and which state’s law will govern,” but if they are “unable to come to a mutual
agreement,” or if one of the parties “refuses to participate in choosing,” the party
seeking arbitration “will have the right to make the choices unilaterally, as long as [that]
party has made a good faith attempt to come to a mutual agreement.” The contract
further specifies that the non-filing party “expressly consents to and waives any and all
objections to the choices made.” The Rule 11 Agreement at issue essentially ratified
the dispute resolution procedures referenced in the contract.
Thus, because the arbitration agreement specified a method for selecting an
arbitrator, the trial court was permitted to appoint an arbitrator only if one or both of the
parties “fail[ed] to avail” itself of the agreed-upon arbitrator selection method, or there
12
was a “lapse” in the selection of an arbitrator. 9 U.S.C. § 5; see CMH Homes, 340
S.W.3d at 449; In re Serv. Corp. Int'l, 2011 Tex. LEXIS 935, at **4–6.
We conclude, based on the specific factual and procedural posture of the case
as presented to this Court, that the trial court was permitted to appoint an arbitrator. By
written motion, Directory Assistants informed the Court that “to the extent [Rio Grande]
asks the Court to appoint an arbitrator, [Directory Assistants] requests that an arbitrator
be appointed in Dallas, Texas, consistent with the letter and spirit of the parties’ Rule 11
Agreement.” At the hearing on these issues, Directory Assistants stated that it was “in
agreement that an arbitrator should be appointed in this case” and that if the trial court
was “inclined to appoint an arbitrator in McAllen” that Directory Assistants would
“certainly like input as to that.” In short, Directory Assistants asked the trial court to
appoint an arbitrator in this case and thus failed to avail itself of the agreed-upon
arbitrator selection method. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
appointing an arbitrator. 9 U.S.C. § 5; see CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 449; In re Serv.
Corp. Int'l, 2011 Tex. LEXIS 935, at **4–6.
Our determination herein is buttressed by the fundamental principles underlying
mandamus relief. As a general rule, mandamus will not issue to compel an action that
has not first been demanded and refused. See In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex.
1999) (orig. proceeding); Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712, 723 (Tex. 1991) (orig.
proceeding); Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 556 (Tex. 1990) (orig.
proceeding).5 Moreover, equity is generally not served by issuing an extraordinary writ
against a trial court judge on a ground that was never presented in the trial court and
5
An exception to this “demand and refusal” requirement arises if demand would be futile. See In
re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding); Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712, 723
(Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding); however, the record before us fails to implicate this doctrine.
13
that the trial judge thus had no opportunity to address. See In re Michele Le, 335
S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding).
Although Directory Assistants requested the trial court to enforce the Rule 11
Agreement, the Rule 11 Agreement broadly addressed the validity and enforceability of
the arbitration agreement and did not reference Directory Assistants’ right under the
arbitration agreement to select an arbitrator. In short, Directory Assistants never
informed the trial court that it was invoking its contractual right to unilaterally select an
arbitrator and it never requested the trial court to enforce that right. Instead, and
inconsistently, Directory Assistants requested the trial court to appoint an arbitrator.
The trial court was not presented with Directory Assistants’ contention that it had the
unilateral right to select the arbitrator and the trial court thus had no opportunity to
address it. See id.; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself
entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the stay previously imposed by this Court is
LIFTED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting
temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). The petition for writ of
mandamus is DENIED. See id. 52.8(a).
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Delivered and filed the 29th
day of February, 2012.
14