in Re: Scoggins Construction Company, Inc.

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 Curiam1 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 1 See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinion but is not required to do so.”); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions). 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. 2