in Re AT&T Inc. ( 2020 )

NUMBER 13-19-00074-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE AT&T INC., ET AL.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1
Relators, AT&T Inc.; New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility,
individually and in its capacity as General Partner of McAllen-Edinburg-Mission SMSA
Limited Partnership, Texas RSA 18 Limited Partnership, and Texas RSA 19 Limited
Partnership; AT&T Mobility Corporation; Cricket Communications, LLC; and Cricket
Wireless, LLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on February 15,
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); see also id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2019. Through this original proceeding, relators sought to compel the trial court to vacate
and set aside an order compelling the production of allegedly privileged documents. As
an initial matter, however, relators sought abatement of this original proceeding pursuant
to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b); In re Blevins,
480 S.W.3d 542, 543 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Relators argued that
the respondent in this original proceeding, the Honorable Juan Partida, no longer
presided over the 275th District Court and this matter should be abated pending
consideration of the issues herein by his successor, the Honorable Marla Cuellar.
Accordingly, we abated this cause to allow Judge Cuellar, to consider the matters at issue
here. See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b). Subsequently, relators notified this Court that the
underlying case had been removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, McAllen Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 50 U.S.C. §
1885a(g). On March 5, 2020, relators notified this Court that the removal divested “the
275th District Court and this Court of jurisdiction,” and that on February 26, 2020, the
United States District Court denied a motion to remand this matter back to the 275th
District Court.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the foregoing sequence of
events, is of the opinion that this petition for writ of mandamus should be dismissed
without regard to the merits. Accordingly, we reinstate this cause, and we dismiss this
original proceeding and all relief sought therein without prejudice.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
12th day of March, 2020.
2