Lakeith Amir-Sharif
05-15-01169-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 24, 2015Background
- LaKeith Amir-Sharif (relator) filed a slip-and-fall suit in Oct. 2009 against Quick Trip and others; the matter has been repeatedly appealed and remanded and has been before multiple trial judges.
- Relator filed dozens of motions over several years and repeatedly demanded that the trial court set “all” his motions for hearing.
- The trial court consolidated related actions, addressed many administrative requests, and issued letters explaining that relator must identify specific motions to be set for hearing.
- The trial judge issued rulings on many of relator’s motions, set others for telephonic hearing, and arranged for the prison to provide telephone access for hearings.
- Relator filed a mandamus petition seeking to compel the trial court to rule on thirteen pending motions; the Court of Appeals denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by failing to rule on motions within a reasonable time | Relator: motions were properly pending and the court unreasonably delayed rulings, denying access and due process | Trial court/real parties: many motions were not properly called to the court’s attention, were administrative, duplicative, or lacked required conference certificates; court acted diligently | Denied mandamus: no clear abuse shown for remaining motions; many were rendered moot by court rulings and others were not shown to have been timely called to the judge’s attention |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate when trial court issues some rulings after petition filed | Relator: still entitled to relief on unresolved motions | Real parties: many motions resolved; mandamus unnecessary or moot as to those | Mandamus denied as to motions already addressed; case or claims became moot where controversies were resolved |
| Whether relator had an adequate appellate remedy | Relator: claimed no adequate remedy because motions remained pending indefinitely | Real parties: relator has had prior appellate proceedings and the record shows opportunities for relief; procedural requirements (e.g., certificates of conference) bar immediate relief | Court found relator did not demonstrate lack of adequate appellate remedy sufficient for mandamus |
| Duty to rule when motions are not properly presented | Relator: court must rule on motions once filed | Trial court: judge need not rule on motions not specifically identified or not properly called to the court’s attention | Held that trial court is not required to rule on motions not properly called to its attention; moving party bears responsibility to procure hearing |
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 governing extraordinary relief and mandamus)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (requirements for mandamus: clear abuse and lack of adequate appellate remedy)
- Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. v. [sic—case referenced], 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (mootness and justiciability in mandamus context)
- In re Amir-Sharif, 357 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (trial court abuse when failing to rule on properly presented pretrial motions within a reasonable time)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1995) (courts will not issue mandamus when relief would be useless or unavailing)
- Chavez v. [sic—case referenced], 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (no entitlement to hearing at whatever time litigant chooses; reasonableness standard for trial court delay)
- Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (trial court has a reasonable time to consider and rule on motions)