In Re: Carr Engineering Inc. v. the State of Texas

Denied and Opinion Filed October 2, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-01151-CV

IN RE CARR ENGINEERING INC., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-03126

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
Before the Court are relator’s October 1, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus

and September 30, 2024 emergency motion for temporary relief. In its petition,

relator challenges the trial court’s June 6, 2024 order denying relator’s motion to

quash and motion for protection from a subpoena it had received a month prior

compelling nonparty discovery. In its emergency motion, relator seeks to stay all

trial court proceedings, including an October 3, 2024 hearing on a motion for

contempt against relator for failure to comply with the subpoena, pending our action

on the petition.
“[A] relator who unduly or unreasonably delays filing a petition for

mandamus relief may waive its right to such relief unless the delay is justified.” In re

Am. Airlines, Inc., 634 S.W.3d 38, 43 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam);

see also, e.g., In re Auto Club Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 05-24-00960-CV, 2024 WL

4223702, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 18, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(mandamus relief barred after an unjustified delay of nearly three and a half months

and filing less than six weeks before trial); In re Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC,

No. 05-21-00650-CV, 2021 WL 3276875, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 30, 2021,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (mandamus relief barred after an unexplained delay of

four and a half months after oral ruling and three months after written order).

After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude that

relator waived any right to mandamus relief from the challenged order by filing its

mandamus petition after an unexplained delay of nearly four months and on the eve

of a hearing on a motion for contempt against relator for failing to comply with the

subpoena upheld by the challenged order. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition

for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We also deny as moot relator’s

emergency motion for temporary relief.

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/
ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS
JUSTICE
241151F.P05

–2–