IN RE: SCOGGINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.--Appeal from 398th District Court of Hidalgo County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-08-00317-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE SCOGGINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1 Relator, Scoggins Construction Company, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on May 20, 2008. Through this original proceeding, relator challenges the trial court s order of April 2, 2008, denying relator s motion for leave to join third-party defendants and to designate responsible third parties. The Court requested and received a response from the real party in interest, Mercedes Independent School District. 1 See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) ( W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinion but is not required to do so. ); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which is available only when a trial court has clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992)); see also In re Team Rocket, L.P., 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 945, 2008 Tex. LEXIS 501, *2 (Tex. May 23, 2008) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief sought. See TEX . R. CIV. P. 37, 38; In re Unitec Elevator Servs. Co., 178 S.W.3d 53, 64-66 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding); In re Martin, 147 S.W.3d 453, 45859 (Tex. App. Beaumont 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Arthur Andersen LLP, 121 S.W.3d 471, 485-86 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this 30th day of June, 2008. 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.