in Re: Rodney John Ramirez
08-15-00270-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 5, 2015Background
- Rodney Ramirez (relator), a Texas inmate, filed for divorce in 2004 (cause no. 2004CM4551) and sought a bench warrant to attend the final hearing or alternative means (conference call or affidavits).
- The trial court dismissed the divorce in 2009 without ruling on Ramirez’s attendance requests; this Court reversed that dismissal in 2010 and mandate issued December 10, 2010.
- After remand, the trial court issued a notice of intent to dismiss in February 2011; Ramirez renewed his motion for a bench warrant and later filed a motion for entry of default judgment.
- The appellate docket shows the case was closed (docket entry noting a mandate) in March 2012, though no final judgment or dismissal order addressing Ramirez’s pending motions was entered.
- Ramirez petitioned this Court for mandamus in 2015, arguing the trial court failed to rule on his motions that have been pending since issuance of the 2010 mandate.
- The Court found the motions were properly filed, pending for a reasonable time, brought to the court’s attention, and that the trial court had not acted; it conditionally granted mandamus directing the trial court to rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by failing to rule on pending motions | Ramirez: motions were properly filed, pending since mandate, and court failed to rule | Trial court: (implicit) no ruling; docket closure may reflect administrative action | Court: Abuse shown; trial court must act on pending motions |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate remedy | Ramirez: no adequate appellate remedy; mandamus proper to compel ruling | Trial court: (implicit) remedy by appeal is inadequate when court refuses to rule | Court: Mandamus appropriate because motions pending and no adequate appellate remedy |
| Whether appellate record may be judicially noticed to determine case status | Ramirez: Court may take notice of official records to determine status | Respondent: (not argued) appellate courts should avoid taking notice of merits | Court: Taking judicial notice of official record to determine status is appropriate |
| Whether case closure discharged trial court’s duty to rule | Ramirez: docketed closure was inadvertent and did not resolve motions | Trial court: (implicit) closure suggested by docket entry | Court: Closure did not resolve merits; trial court must still act on pending motions |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standards and requirements)
- In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006) (mandamus may compel ruling on motion pending a reasonable time)
- In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (requirements for obtaining mandamus to compel ruling)
- In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (mandamus for failure to rule on motions)
- Freedom Comm’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2012) (scope of judicial notice for public record matters)
- Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 878 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. 1994) (appellate courts may take judicial notice of public records)
- Estate of Hemsley, 460 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014) (judicial notice limitations and appropriate use)