in Re: Scoggins Construction Company, Inc.

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases







NUMBER 13-08-00548-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 Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam (1)



Relator, Scoggins Construction Company, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on September 19, 2008. Through this original proceeding, relator challenges the trial court's order of August 26, 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., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 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); see also In re Scoggins Constr. Co., No. 13-08-00317-CV, 2008 WL 2721811 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi June 30, 2008, orig. proceeding [mand. pending]). 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 15th day of October, 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).