From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Unit Texas Drilling, 13-10-00267-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi — Edinburg
Jul 6, 2010
No. 13-10-00267-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 6, 2010)

Opinion

No. 13-10-00267-CV

Delivered and filed July 6, 2010.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Before Justices YAÑEZ, RODRIGUEZ, and GARZA.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Relators, Unit Texas Drilling, L.L.C., Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on May 5, 2010. On May 6, 2010, the Court requested that the real parties in interest, Caesar Morales and his wife, Rhonda Morales, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus, and such response was duly filed on May 24, 2010. On June 4, 2010, relators filed an amended reply in further support of their petition. On June 7, 2010, this Court granted relators' "Unopposed Motion to Consolidate and Stay the Interlocutory Appeal Deadlines" in this cause and the related appeal pending in cause number 13-10-00247-CV.

Mandamus is an "extraordinary" remedy. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); see In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). In order to obtain mandamus relief, the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); see In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, and the reply thereto, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought in the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.016 (Vernon Supp. 2009) (allowing for interlocutory appeal of a matter subject to the Federal Arbitration Act to the same extent as allowed under federal law). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).


Summaries of

Unit Texas Drilling, 13-10-00267-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi — Edinburg
Jul 6, 2010
No. 13-10-00267-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 6, 2010)
Case details for

Unit Texas Drilling, 13-10-00267-CV

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: UNIT TEXAS DRILLING, L.L.C, UNIT DRILLING COMPANY, AND CLIFF WELKER

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi — Edinburg

Date published: Jul 6, 2010

Citations

No. 13-10-00267-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 6, 2010)

Citing Cases

In re Santander Consumer U.S., Inc.

See, e.g., In re H.D. Vest, Inc., 334 S.W.3d 333, 334 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2010, orig. proceeding) (denying…

In re Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

See, e.g., In re H.D. Vest, Inc., 334 S.W.3d 333, 334 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, orig. proceeding) (denying…