In re Phillip Rodriguez Appeal from 285th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-20-00537-CV IN RE Phillip RODRIGUEZ Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena Chapa, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 25, 2020 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On November 5, 2020, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he complains the trial court has refused to rule on and grant his no-evidence motion for summary judgment. A trial court clearly abuses its discretion when it fails to rule within a reasonable time on a properly-presented motion. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). However, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring relator to file “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). In a case such as this one, a relator This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020-CI-12089, styled Philip Rodriguez v. H.E.B. Grocery Store, L.P., et al., pending in the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Larry Noll presiding. 1 has the burden to provide the court of appeals with a record showing the motion at issue was properly filed, the trial court was made aware of the motion, and the motion has not been ruled on by the trial court for an unreasonable period of time. See In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 167-68 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). Relator did not provide this court with any record. Also, relator contends he set his summary judgment motion for hearing on September 15, 2020. Assuming this date is accurate, relator has not shown a two-month delay in ruling is unreasonable. Therefore, we conclude relator did not establish his right to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. PER CURIAM
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.
