IN RE: UNIT TEXAS DRILLING, L.L.C., UNIT DRILLING COMPANY, AND CLIFF WELKER--Appeal from 23rd District Court of Matagorda County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-10-00267-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE: UNIT TEXAS DRILLING, L.L.C, UNIT DRILLING COMPANY, AND CLIFF WELKER On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1 Relators, Unit Texas Drilling, L.L.C., Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on May 5, 2010. On May 6, 2010, the Court requested that the real parties in interest, Caesar Morales and his wife, Rhonda Morales, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus, and such response was duly filed on May 24, 2010. On June 4, 2010, relators filed an amended reply in further support of their petition. On June 7, 2010, this Court granted relators Unopposed Motion to 1 See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) ( W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinio n but is not required to do so. ); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions). Consolidate and Stay the Interlocutory Appeal Deadlines in this cause and the related appeal pending in cause number 13-10-00247-CV. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); see In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). In order to obtain mandamus relief, the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); see In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, and the reply thereto, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought in the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX . CIV. PRAC . & REM . CODE ANN . § 51.016 (Vernon Supp. 2009) (allowing for interlocutory appeal of a matter subject to the Federal Arbitration Act to the same extent as allowed under federal law). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 6th day of July, 2010. 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.
