In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00267-CV
IN RE REBECCA TERRELL,
CHANDRASHEKHAR THANEDAR, RELATORS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
October 3, 2013
ORDER
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Pending before this Court is Relators’ pro se motion for emergency relief filed in
connection with their pending pro se petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.10. We have considered Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and responses
thereto, Relator’s motion for emergency relief, the response to said motion, and
Relators’ reply to said response.
In their petition for writ of mandamus, Relators request that this Court issue a writ
of mandamus directing the trial court “(1) to hold hearing on all of plaintiffs’ pending
motions, and upon hearing, to rule on all of them in 30 days from the date of the Court’s
mandamus; (2) to conduct proceedings on this Court’s specific reasons for remand . . . ;
(3) to conduct all other proceedings consistent with this Court’s Mandate to bring this
suit to a conclusion in an expeditious manner.”
By letter dated August 23, 2013, the trial court set a hearing for October 9, 2013.
Days later, Relators requested clarification, asking the trial court to specify “which
motions and matters will be heard” at the October 9 hearing and specifically requesting
that the trial court consider “the availability of post-remand discovery on the good faith
issue” as identified in this Court’s opinion remanding the cause on direct appeal. 1 In an
attempt to clarify and respond to Relators’ concerns and questions, the trial court
responded by letter dated September 17, 2013: “One full day has been set aside for trial
and to hear all matters pending in the case including, but not limited to, pending motions
and objections.” Based on the correspondence, it would appear that the trial court has
set a hearing on all pending matters, precisely as Relators have requested in their
petition seeking mandamus relief from this Court.
Seemingly still dissatisfied upon having received the relief they requested,
Relators have filed their motion seeking emergency relief in which they now request that
this “Court grant their motion for temporary relief and stay the trial court proceedings
currently set for October 9, 2013[,] and vacate the trial setting of October 9, 2013[,] and
order that any trial setting and deadlines be set in consultation with parties and with
sufficient notice.”
From the various submissions in this case, it has become clear to this Court that
the trial court has set a hearing on the matters complained of in Relators’ petition. Now,
1
See Terrell v. Pampa Indep. Sch. Dist., 345 S.W.3d 641 (Tex.App.—Amarillo
2011, pet. denied).
2
having gotten what they have requested, Relators now seek to stay the trial court
proceedings. The basis for Relators’ motion would appear to be an expression of need
for further time to conduct discovery. However, this Court has noted that Relators
specifically requested that the trial court consider the availability of such in their August
26 letter to the trial court requesting clarification. Simply put, from the various pleadings
and records filed in connection with this original proceeding, Relators request in their
motion that this Court stay the very proceedings which they have urgently requested.
This Court refuses to grant such emergency relief and expresses its displeasure with
having been confronted with such a request.
This Court denies Relators’ Motion for Temporary Relief in which it asks the
Court to stay the hearing set in response to Relators’ petition requesting that a hearing
be set. The hearing set for October 9, 2013, will be conducted per the trial court’s
direction.
Further, this Court has recognized Real Party in Interest’s motion for sanctions
filed contemporaneously with its response to Relators’ motion for emergency relief.
Said motion will be held in abeyance and carried with this cause. The Court reserves its
authority to call upon Relators to respond to said motion at a later date as it may
become appropriate. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.11.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Per Curiam
3