DENY and Opinion Filed December 19, 2022
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-01335-CV
IN RE UMTH GENERAL SERVICES, L.P., Relator
Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-09833
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Carlyle
Opinion by Justice Reichek
Before the Court is relator UMTH General Services, L.P.’s December 14,
2022 petition for writ of mandamus.1 Relator challenges the trial court’s November
30, 2022 order denying a motion to dismiss. Also before the Court is relator’s
December 15, 2022 motion to stay and request for expedited consideration.
Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court
clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
1
A petition filed with this Court commencing an original proceeding must be captioned “In re [name
of relator].” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1. “The party seeking the relief is the relator.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2. Although
the body of relator’s petition refers to multiple parties as “relators,” UMTH General Services, L.P. is the
only party who has commenced this original proceeding.
proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record
to show it is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)
(orig. proceeding). Here, however, relator’s petition is not properly certified. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008,
orig. proceeding). Further, the record reflects that the trial court held a hearing on
relator’s motion to dismiss on November 30, 2022. But relator neither provided a
properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from that hearing,
including any exhibits offered into evidence, nor a statement that no testimony was
adduced in connection with the matter complained. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2).
Accordingly, we conclude that relator has failed to carry its burden and deny
relator’s petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to refiling. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.8(a). We also deny as moot relator’s motion to stay and request for
expedited consideration.
/Amanda L. Reichek/
AMANDA L. REICHEK
JUSTICE
221335F.P05
–2–