In re Patrick G. Mire

In re Mire · Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, El Paso · February 13, 2013 · No. No. 08-13-00020-CV

Summary

The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Texas denied Patrick G. Mire’s petition for writ of mandamus challenging orders denying motions for abatement, severance, dismissal, striking a responsible-third-party designation, and summary judgment. The court held that Mire’s unexplained delay of more than seven months constituted a lack of diligence and laches, and further stated that the record did not demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, El Paso
Writing for the Court
Guadalupe Rivera; McClure, C.J.; Guadalupe Rivera, J.; Rodriguez, J.
Jurisdiction
Texas
Decision date
February 13, 2013
Docket number
No. 08-13-00020-CV
Procedural posture
Original proceeding in mandamus seeking relief from two orders of the 346th District Court of El Paso County denying motions for abatement and severance, dismissal and striking of a responsible-third-party designation, and summary judgment based on limitations.
Standard of review
Mandamus requires proof that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Patrick G. Mire
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

writ of certiorariappellate procedureremediescivil procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Civil procedureAppellate procedureMandamusEquitable remedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Mire demonstrated entitlement to mandamus relief by showing a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.
  2. Whether Mire's unexplained seven-month delay in seeking mandamus relief barred relief under the equitable doctrine of laches.
  3. Whether the record demonstrated that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in entering the challenged orders.

Holdings

  1. Mandamus relief may be denied for lack of diligence when the relator delays seeking relief without justification; Mire's unexplained delay of more than seven months required denial of relief because of laches.
  2. Mire was not entitled to mandamus relief because the record did not demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion, even assuming he had sought relief earlier.

Key quotations

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if the Relator shows: (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion; and (2) the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.
By waiting more than seven months to request relief, Relator has not been diligent and, thus, we conclude relief must be denied because of laches.

Factual background

The trial court entered orders on June 5, 2012, denying Mire's motions for abatement and severance, dismissal and striking of a responsible-third-party designation based on misjoinder, and summary judgment based on limitations. Mire waited more than seven months, until one week before trial in the underlying case, to seek mandamus relief and offered no explanation for the delay.

Procedural history

Mire filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals on January 29, 2013, challenging trial-court orders entered June 5, 2012. The appellate court denied relief because Mire waited more than seven months to seek mandamus relief without explaining the delay and, alternatively, failed to demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…