In re Raymond Choate and Kelly Mallady Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 1 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 15, 2022. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-22-00397-CV IN RE RAYMOND CHOATE AND KELLY MALLADY, Relators ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS County Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1180192 MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 6, 2022, relators Raymond Choate and Kelly Mallady filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this Court to compel the Honorable Audrie Lawton-Evans, presiding judge of the County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County, to vacate the trial court’s April 12, 2022 order compelling relator Choate’s examination under oath. On October 18, 2022, real party in interest Homeowners of America Insurance Company filed a supplemental response to relators’ petition for writ of mandamus that advised this Court that on October 18, 2022, relators filed a “notice of Transfer of Tag Along Case Under Rule 13, Rules of Judicial Administration,” which operates to transfer the underlying case to the multidistrict litigation pretrial court. Thus, the real party in interest contends that this Court no longer has jurisdictional capacity to act on the relief in the mandamus that the realtors seek. The real party in interest requests that this Court deny and/or dismiss relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. Relators have not contested or otherwise opposed the status of the underlying proceedings as set forth by the real party in interest. We conclude that the transfer of the underlying case to the multidistrict litigation pretrial court renders the relief requested in the mandamus petition moot. As such, we dismiss relators’ petition for writ of mandamus as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Poissant. 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.