Message
×
loading..

In Re: Ernest M. Edsel, Jonathan Fielding, Travis W. Berkley, John "Jack" Dimond v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and Opinion Filed April 24, 2024
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-24-00427-CV
    IN RE ERNEST M. EDSEL, JONATHAN FIELDING,
    TRAVIS W. BERKLEY, AND JOHN “JACK” DIMOND, Relators
    Original Proceeding from the 298th Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-16167
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia
    Opinion by Justice Garcia
    Before the Court is relators’ April 9, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus. In
    their petition, relators raise several issues challenging the trial court’s failure to rule
    or act on certain motions, including two motions to recuse, several motions
    contesting special appearances, and a rule 329b motion to modify or vacate the trial
    court’s order granting the special appearances.
    Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court
    clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.
    In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
    proceeding).
    After reviewing relators’ petition and the record before us, we requested a
    response limited to the following issue: whether respondent Judge Tobolowsky
    failed to comply with a duty imposed by rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil
    Procedure and, if so, whether relators are entitled to any mandamus relief from any
    such failure. We received a response from respondent Judge Tobolowsky. She
    explained that she has signed an order recusing herself and attached a copy of her
    recusal order. Because relators have obtained the relief sought with respect to Judge
    Tobolowsky’s compliance with rule 18a, we conclude that this issue is now moot.
    See Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure
    Fund, LLC, 
    619 S.W.3d 628
    , 634–35 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (discussing
    mootness doctrine). Lacking jurisdiction over a moot issue, we dismiss relators’
    petition to the extent it relates to this issue. See 
    id.
    Regarding all remaining issues raised by relators’ petition, we conclude that
    relators have failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we
    deny relators’ petition as it relates to all remaining issues. See TEX. R. APP. P.
    52.8(a).
    /Dennise Garcia//
    240427f.p05                                    DENNISE GARCIA
    JUSTICE
    –2–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-24-00427-CV

Filed Date: 4/24/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/1/2024