Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed August 23,
2011.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-11-00604-CV
____________
IN RE SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
434th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 10-DCV-186511
MEMORANDUM
OPINION
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 [14th 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.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Brown, and Christopher.
2
