in Re: 165 Howe, LP ( 2018 )

DENY; and Opinion Filed July 3, 2018.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00762-CV
IN RE 165 HOWE, LP, ET AL., Relators
Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-03144-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Fillmore
Before the Court is relators’ July 3, 2018 Petition for Writ of Mandamus in which they
complain of the trial court’s June 4, 2018 discovery order compelling relators to comply by July
4, 2018. To be entitled to mandamus relief, relators must show both that the trial court has clearly
abused its discretion and that relators have no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins.
Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
Based on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown they are entitled to the
relief requested. Further, relators do not explain why they have waited to the eve of the compliance
deadline to seek a stay and to seek extraordinary relief. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition
for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court
determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought); see also In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274
S.W.3d 672, 676 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (“[D]elaying the filing of a petition
for mandamus relief may waive the right to mandamus unless the relator can justify the delay.”);
In re Boehme, 256 S.W.3d 878, 887 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding)
(“delay alone can provide ample ground to deny mandamus relief.”); Furr’s Supermarkets, Inc. v.
Mulanax, 897 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, orig. proceeding) (relator sought
mandamus relief on the day documents were due and four months after court’s oral discovery
ruling).
/Robert M. Fillmore/
ROBERT M. FILLMORE
JUSTICE
180762F.P05
–2–