in Re Valero Refining-Texas, L.P., 01-15-00566-CV

Valero filed a mandamus petition asking the appellate court to compel the trial court to vacate its order granting a new trial and to reinstate the jury verdict judgment.
The original new-trial order was signed by Judge Bret Griffin on December 30, 2014; Judge Patricia Grady later declined to enter judgment on the jury verdict but did not initially state her reasons.
Because a successor judge must state reasons when reaffirming a predecessor’s grant of a new trial, Valero moved to abate the mandamus and asked the trial court to provide those reasons.
The First Court of Appeals granted abatement on September 16, 2015, ordered the trial court to state its reasons within 30 days (or within 30 days of any hearing), and directed the clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record.
Following the abatement and a hearing, on October 12, 2015 Judge Grady set aside her prior order granting a new trial and reinstated the December 30, 2014 final judgment in conformity with the jury verdict.
The appellate clerk filed Judge Grady’s order on October 13, 2015; Valero moved to lift the abatement and dismiss the mandamus as moot because it obtained the relief requested.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mandamus remains necessary to compel the trial court to vacate the new-trial order and reinstate judgment	Valero: mandamus necessary because successor judge refused to enter judgment and did not state reasons for reaffirming new trial	Foxes: opposed to abatement originally; later unopposed to dismissal after trial judge reinstated judgment	Court abated to allow successor judge to state reasons; after judge reinstated judgment, mandamus rendered moot and should be dismissed
Whether a successor judge must provide independent reasons when reaffirming a predecessor’s grant of new trial	Valero: successor must state its own reasons so appellant can challenge the decision	Trial court initially: declined to state reasons; successor judges often defer to predecessor’s reasoning	Court relied on precedent requiring successor judges to state reasons; abated to obtain those reasons
From which date appellate deadlines run when a new-trial order is later withdrawn	Valero: deadlines should run from the later order reinstating judgment	Foxes/trial court: earlier new-trial order could affect timing	Judge Grady’s order recited appellate deadlines run from the later order reinstating judgment, per precedent

In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2008) (successor judge must provide reasons when refusing to enter judgment and granting new trial)
In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 289 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. 2009) (trial court abused discretion by refusing to enter judgment and granting new trial without stating reasons)
In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009) (order reaffirming original grant of new trial is effectively an order refusing to enter judgment and requires independent reasons)
In re Cook, 356 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam) (successor trial court must provide its own statement of reasons for setting aside a jury verdict)