IN RE: THE LAMAR CORP. D/B/A LAMAR ADVERTISING CORP., BROWNSVILLE, INC., LAMAR TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP F/K/A LAMAR ADVERTISING OF BROWNSVILLE AND HERB SCOBEY--Appeal from 107th District Court of Cameron County

NUMBER 13-06-596-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: THE LAMAR CORP., D/B/A LAMAR ADVERTISING CORP., BROWNSVILLE, INC., LAMAR TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP F/K/A LAMAR ADVERTISING OF BROWNSVILLE AND HERB SCOBEY

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Motion for Emergency Temporary Relief

 
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Ya ez, Rodriguez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

On October 19, 2006, relators, The Lamar Corp., D/B/A Lamar Advertising Corp., Brownsville, Inc., Lamar Texas Limited Partnership F/K/A Lamar Advertising of Brownsville and Herb Scobey, filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court in which they allege that on September 19, 2006, respondent, the Honorable Benjamin Euresti, Jr., Presiding Judge of the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, abused his discretion by entering an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Sever.

Relators' petition for writ of mandamus asks this Court to order the respondent to vacate the order dated September 19, 2006. In addition, relators filed a motion for emergency relief, asking this Court to order a stay of all further proceedings in the trial court, including but not limited to pretrial discovery, pending resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus.

Pursuant to a request from this Court, the real parties in interest, LaNita Jowers, Individually, and as a representative of the estate of Lonnie Ray Jowers, Susan Brown, as next friend of Casi Janae Jowers and Chad Joe Jowers, Ray Franklin Jowers and Shirley Esther Jowers, as the natural parents of Lonnie Ray Jowers, filed a response to the motion for emergency relief on October 27, 2006 and a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on November 1, 2006.

This Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, motion for emergency relief, response to petition for writ of mandamus, and response to the motion for emergency relief, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought and the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief should be denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief are DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 9th day of November, 2006.