In re Justin Hall Appeal from Probate Court No 2 of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00210-CV IN RE Justin HALL Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 7, 2019 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION On April 8, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of an order signed by the Honorable Tom Rickhoff on March 29, 2018. However, Judge Rickhoff, the respondent, is no longer the presiding judge of Bexar County Probate Court No. 2. When one named in his official capacity as a party to an original proceeding no longer holds the office, abatement is required to allow that party’s successor to “reconsider the original party’s decision.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b). Accordingly, we ordered the substitution of Judge Veronica Vasquez as respondent in this original proceeding, see TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(a), and abated this cause to allow Judge Vasquez to rule de novo on Frances A. Hall’s “Plea to the Jurisdiction and, In the Alternative, Motion for Traditional Summary Judgment.” On June 28, 2019, Judge Vasquez This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-PC-3848, styled In the Estate of Bill Hall, Jr., Deceased, pending in the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Veronica Vasquez presiding. 1 04-19-00210-CV signed an order stating, in part, that relator’s “Motion to Reconsider Prior Judge’s Order Granting Frances A. Hall’s Plea to the Jurisdiction is DENIED.” Thereafter, relator filed a motion in this court requesting an extension of time in which to file an amended petition for writ of mandamus. On July 2, 2019, this court granted the motion, ordered the amended petition or a motion to dismiss be filed by July 15, 2019, and cautioned relator that if he did not timely respond, this original proceeding would be dismissed for want of prosecution. On July 24, 2019, relator filed a second motion asking for an extension of time until “no later than Monday, July 29, 2019.” On July 25, 2019, this court granted the motion, ordered the amended petition or a motion to dismiss be filed by July 29, 2019, and again cautioned relator that if he did not timely respond, this original proceeding would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Our order also stated no further extensions of time would be considered. Relator has not responded to this court’s order; therefore, we dismiss this original proceeding for want of prosecution. PER CURIAM -2-
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.
