in Re: Lakeith Amir-Sharif, 05-14-01514-CV

Background

Relator Lakeith Amir-Sharif sued after a 2009 slip-and-fall; the case has generated roughly 40 motions from relator and multiple appeals.
The trial court twice dismissed the suit after vexatious-litigant proceedings; both dismissals were reversed by this Court and the case was remanded.
The case has been transferred between three trial judges; relator repeatedly requested that the court set “all” his motions for hearing.
After transfer to the current judge (June 6, 2014), relator filed additional motions and then filed this mandamus petition seeking rulings on 13 motions.
The current judge responded by identifying which motions required substantive rulings, issuing rulings on many motions, setting others for hearing, and arranging for relator’s telephone participation.
The Court of Appeals denied the mandamus petition, finding much of it moot and no clear abuse of discretion as to the remaining motions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus should compel rulings on 13 pending motions	Relator argued the trial court failed to rule on his motions and must be ordered to act	Trial court and real parties argued many motions were administrative/duplicative, not properly presented, or already addressed; court had acted on many	Denied: many requests moot; no abuse of discretion on remaining motions
Whether motions were properly presented so the court had duty to rule	Relator claimed he repeatedly demanded hearings for “all” motions	Trial court said general request was insufficient; party must identify specific motion by title/date to procure hearing	Court held motions were not properly called to judge’s attention until relator identified specific motions; duty to request hearing rests with movant
Whether trial court acted within a reasonable time on the motions it had been asked to hear	Relator argued delay was unreasonable	Trial court showed it had acted on many motions, set others for hearing, and arranged telephone participation; docket and prior appeals affected timing	Held that given case circumstances (appeals, transfers, docket) no unreasonable delay shown
Whether mandamus is available given subsequent trial-court action	Relator sought extraordinary relief now	Real parties/trial court argued mandamus would be moot or unavailing for motions already resolved	Court held mandamus inappropriate where controversy was moot or relief would be useless; denied petition

Key Cases Cited

CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1996) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only in limited circumstances)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for extraordinary relief and appellate review)
In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (must show clear abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy for mandamus)
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (case is moot if controversy ceases to exist)
State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1994) (requirement of an actual controversy for justiciability)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1995) (court will not issue mandamus if it would be useless)
In re Amir-Sharif, 357 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (trial court abuses discretion if it fails to rule on properly presented pretrial motions within a reasonable time)
In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (no entitlement to hearing at any time chosen; courts have reasonable time to act)
Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (whether court ruled within reasonable time depends on case circumstances)
Bolton's Estate v. Coats, 608 S.W.2d 722 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1980) (duty to procure a hearing rests on the moving party)
In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004) (court not required to rule on motions not properly called to its attention)