IN RE ES ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LP, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSIGNEES AND/OR ON BEHALF OF MCCOMMAS LFG PROCESSING PARTNERS, LP AND MCCOMMAS LANDFILL PARTNERS, LP, ET AL., Relators

Annotate this Case

Writ of Mandamus Denied in part and Dismissed in part, Opinion issued September 24, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-01158-CV
............................
IN RE ES ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LP, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSIGNEES
AND/OR ON BEHALF OF MCCOMMAS LFG PROCESSING PARTNERS,
LP AND MCCOMMAS LANDFILL PARTNERS, LP, ET AL., Relators
        .............................................................
Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 09-15690-B
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Richter, and Fillmore
Opinion by Justice Fillmore
 
        Before the Court is relators' petition for writ of mandamus, naming the Honorable Carlos Cortez, Judge of the 44th Judicial District Court, and the Honorable John Ovard, Presiding Judge of the First Administrative Judicial Region, as respondents. Relators contend Judge Cortez abused his discretion in not recusing himself from the underlying case and Judge Ovard abused his discretion by denying the motion to recuse after it had been referred to him. The facts and issues regarding the motion to recuse are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them in detail herein.
        As to Judge Ovard, we conclude on the record before us that we lack jurisdiction to review his denial of the motion to recuse. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); In re Hill, No. 05-10-00463-CV, 2010 WL 1633716, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Apr. 23, 2010, orig. proceeding); In re Valladolid, Nos. 07-06-0173-CV and 07-06-0174-CV, 2006 WL 1997401, at *2 (Tex. App.-Amarillo July 18, 2006, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DISMISS relators' petition for writ of mandamus as to Judge Ovard.
         As to Judge Cortez, relators have an adequate remedy at law if the denial of the motion to recuse was erroneous; accordingly, mandamus relief is not available to them. See, e.g., In re McKee, 248 S.W.3d 164, 164 (Tex. 2007); In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428-29 (Tex. 1998). Accordingly, we DENY relators' petition for writ of mandamus with respect to Judge Cortez. We further DENY relators' motion for emergency relief and supplemental motion for emergency relief as MOOT.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          ROBERT M. FILLMORE
                                                          JUSTICE
 
 
 
 
 
                                
 
 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.