eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2008-06

in Re: Scoggins Construction Company, Inc. ( 2008 )


Menu:
 
  •                                    NUMBER 13-08-00317-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE SCOGGINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1
Relator, Scoggins Construction Company, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus
in the above cause on May 20, 2008. Through this original proceeding, relator challenges
the trial court’s order of April 2, 2008, denying relator’s motion for leave to join third-party
defendants and to designate responsible third parties. The Court requested and received
a response from the real party in interest, Mercedes Independent School District.
1
See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinion but
is not required to do so.”); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which is available only when a trial court has
clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)
(citing Walker v. Packer,
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 840 (Tex. 1992)); see also In re Team Rocket,
L.P.,
    51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 945
    , 2008 Tex. LEXIS 501, *2 (Tex. May 23, 2008) (orig.
proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief
sought. See TEX . R. CIV. P. 37, 38; In re Unitec Elevator Servs. Co.,
    178 S.W.3d 53
    , 64-66
(Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding); In re Martin,
    147 S.W.3d 453
    , 458-
59 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Arthur Andersen LLP,
    121 S.W.3d 471
    , 485-86 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, the
petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this 30th day of June, 2008.
2