In Re: UMTH General Services, L.P., UMT Holdings, L.P., UMTH Land Development, L.P., Hollis M. Greenlaw, Todd F. Etter, Ben L. Wissink, and Cara D. Obert v. the State of Texas

Summarize Case

Related Cases

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 11, 2023 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00016-CV IN RE UMTH GENERAL SERVICES, L.P., UMT HOLDINGS, L.P., UMTH LAND DEVELOPMENT, L.P., HOLLIS M. GREENLAW, TODD F. ETTER, BEN L. WISSINK, AND CARA D. OBERT, Relators Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-09833 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel Before the Court is relators’ January 5, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus wherein relators challenge the trial court’s November 30, 2022 Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Also before the Court is relators’ January 5, 2023 Motion to Stay and Request for Expedited Consideration. The complained-of order denying the motion to dismiss was signed in the 192nd Judicial District Court by the Honorable Kristina Williams, whose term expired on December 31, 2022. We abated this original proceeding pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2 to allow the successor judge, the Honorable Maria Aceves, to reconsider the challenged order. The parties filed a status report stating that Judge Aceves had held a hearing to reconsider relators’ motion to dismiss on January 19, 2023, and then had entered an order declining to reconsider the motion. We then reinstated this original proceeding. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relators lack an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to show they are entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Here, relators did not provide a reporter’s record from the January 19, 2023 hearing or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained at that hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2). Relators also contend that on January 18, 2023, they filed a supplement to the record for the trial court’s consideration. But relators have failed to file a certified or sworn copy of the supplement in this original proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Thus, we conclude relators have failed to meet their burden to provide a sufficient record. Even if these defects did not exist, after reviewing relators’ petition and the record before us, we conclude that relators have failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). –2– We also deny relators’ motion to stay and for expedited consideration as moot. /Emily Miskel/ EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE 230016F.P05 –3–