In Re Platinum II, LLC v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Opinion issued May 16, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-23-00350-CV
———————————
IN RE PLATINUM II, LLC, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Platinum II, LLC, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging
the trial court’s January 18, 2023 “Order Denying [Relator’s] Motion for Leave to
Designate [John Nau and Nau Capital, LLC as] Responsible Third-Parties.”1 Relator
further argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on two other
1
The underlying case is Kerry Fritz v. Platinum II, LLC and Standard Constructors,
Inc., Cause No. 2022-32347, in the 333rd District Court of Harris County, Texas,
the Honorable Brittanye Morris presiding.
motions to designate responsible third parties, including (1) relator’s “Motion to
Designate [Riviera Australia Pty Ltd as a] Responsible Third Party,” filed on January
5, 2023 and set on the trial court’s March 27, 2023 submission docket, and (2)
relator’s “Motion to Designate Seabrook Harbor & Marine, LLC as Responsible
Third Party,” filed on April 6, 2023 and set on the trial court’s April 24, 2023
submission docket.
In connection with its mandamus petition, relator also filed an “Emergency
Motion for Stay Pending Review,” requesting that this Court “enter an order staying
the underlying suit pending a decision” on the mandamus petition. Relator stated
that the stay is necessary to prevent trial of the underlying litigation, currently set on
the trial court’s trial docket beginning July 10, 2023, from moving forward until the
Court has considered its mandamus petition.
Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that relator has failed to
establish that it is entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7, 52.8; see
also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). Accordingly, we deny
relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). All pending
motions, including relator’s “Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Review,” are
dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.
2