In re Southern Ins. Co.

Full title: IN RE SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston

Date published: Aug 23, 2011

No. 14-11-00604-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 23, 2011)

Opinion

No. 14-11-00604-CV

Opinion filed August 23, 2011.

Original Proceeding, Writ of Mandamus.

Appealed from the 434th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 10-DCV-186511.

Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, BROWN, and CHRISTOPHER.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On July 14, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator complains that respondent, the Honorable James Shoemake, presiding judge of the 434th District Court of Fort Bend County, abused his discretion in failing to grant relator's Motion to Compel Appraisal and Abate. Real parties in interest, Jorge and Blanco Barrios, filed a response.

Mandamus will not lie absent a ruling by the trial court that is being challenged. See Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 556 (Tex. 1990) (for mandamus to lie, the respondent "must have explicitly denied motions intended to compel the deposition. . . ."); and In re Baldridge, No. 14-06-00647-CV, 2006 WL 2167239 (Tex. App.-Houston [14^th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus because relators failed to provide court of appeals a written order, citing Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)(A) and In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding) (concluding that mandamus relief may be based on oral ruling only if the ruling is a "clear, specific, and enforceable order that is adequately shown by the record")).

The record contains neither a written order nor an oral ruling denying relator's Motion to Compel Appraisal and Abate. Relator cites In re Shredder Co., L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2006, no pet.), for its holding the trial court abused its discretion by delaying ruling on a motion to compel arbitration. The Shredder court, however, conditionally granted writ to issue "only if the trial court fails to rule on the motion to compel arbitration." Id. at 680 (emphasis added). The court expressly offered no opinion on the merits of the motion. Id. Relator does not ask us to compel the trial court to rule.

Relator has failed to establish it is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.