FILED
IN SUPREME COURT
OF TEXAS
n, n«™«i<
Date:08FEB15
FEB 11 2015
BLAKE HAWTHORNE, Clerk
1°: BY PATRICK D. PASSMORE, Deputy
1) Blake A. Hawthorne (Clerk; Tx. S.Ct.; P.O. Box 12248; Austin, TX 78711;
512-463-1312; Via postage-prepaid USPS 1st class mail)
CC:
1) Mathew C. G. Boyle (one true-copy of this cover letter) (Atty. of Record for
Respondents; Boyle & Lowry, LLP; 4201 Wingren Rd., Ste 108; Irving, TX
75062; 972-650-7100; Via postage-prepaid USPS 1st class mail)
FR: M. Aram Azadpour (pro se Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner; P.O. Box 2644,
Grapevine, TX 76099; 817-901-1160)
RE: The Petitioner Will Not Be Seeking a Rehearing on the Denial of Petition for
Review in Pet. No. 14-0718
Dear Mr. Hawthorne,
On February 06, 2015 I sent an e-mail to the Office of Court Clerk (and copied the Lead
Counsel for the Respondents on the same e-mail) stating that I wished to file a motion for
rehearing on the "denial" of my Petition for Review under Pet. No. 14-0718.1 had
intended to seek rehearing on two matters, one on the matter that under the Tex. Pub.
Info. Act (Tex. Gov. Cd. Chp. 552), the initial information requestor need not to wait for
the Tex. Atty. Gen. to issue a letter-ruling before seeking a mandamus compelling
disclosure;1 and on another matter, which when the trial-court lacks subject matter, then
its only path is to dismiss "without" prejudice as oppose to dismissing "with" prejudice.
Upon further analysis, I do not believe I would be entitled to a rehearing on grounds of
modifying the trial-court's judgment so as to dismiss the cause of action upon the Tex.
Pub. Info. Act "without" prejudice for the trial-court stated that it lacked subject matter to
1Presently there is another petition pending before the Court (under Pet. No. 14-15) which is on the same
matter, and I believe the Court will rule in the favor of the petitioner there, i.e., the initial information
requestor need not to wait for the Tex. Atty. Gen. to issuea letter-ruling before the initial information
requestor is to bring a mandamus action to compel disclosure of public information.
Page 1 of 2, cvr_ltr_on_not_seeking_a_rehearing_on_denial_of_petition
hear that cause. Therefore, it should have dismissed the matter "without" prejudice as
oppose to "with" prejudice. Black v. Jackson. 82 SW.3d 44, 55 (Tex. App. - Tyler [12th
Dist.] 2002, no pet.). It seems that I could not have raised that matter (even as a fairly
included issue within the issue related to the Tex. Pub. Info. Act), at the Court of Appeals
level without having first raised it in the trial-court by-way of a motion for new trial.
Leonard v. Abbott (Atty. Gen, ofTex.). 171 SW.3d 451,461 (Tex. App. - Austin [3rd
Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).
Therefore, I will "not" be seeking a rehearing of the "denial" of Pet. No. 14-0718 by an
Order dated January 09, 2015.
Regards,
(o k lh
M. Aram Azadpour
pro se Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner
Page 2 of 2, cvr_ltr_on_not_seeking_a_rehearing_on_denial_of_petition