In Re Anil Verma v. the State of Texas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed
July 18, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00143-CV

IN RE ANIL VERMA, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
400th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 22-DCV-300010

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Tuesday, February 27, 2024, relator Anil Verma filed a petition for writ
of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R.
App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel respondent, the
Honorable Tameika Carter, presiding judge of the 400th District Court of Fort
Bend County, to vacate her October 3, 2023 oral ruling that “affirmed the
Associate Judge’s order granting, Arvind’s Motion to Disqualify.”
This matter concerns a request for a de novo hearing before the district
judge, as opposed to judicial action by the district judge on the associate judge’s
proposed order. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 54A.114 (judicial action on
associate judge’s proposed order or judgment), .115 (de novo hearing). Mandamus
will not lie absent a ruling by the trial court that is being challenged. In re S. Ins.
Co., No. 14-11-00604-CV, 2011 WL 3667849, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] Aug. 23, 2011, orig. proceeding).
The mandamus record does not contain a signed a written order from
respondent. Relator contends respondent abused her discretion when she made this
oral ruling during an October 3, 2023:
“I am not going to re-litigate. You-all put a lot of work into this for
[the associate judge], and her ruling is clear. I’ve reviewed her orders,
and I think it would not be a good use of our time to have -- I don’t
think there’s anything new that you can give me today that’s going to
make me overturn what she has already ruled, so I’m going to sign off
on [the associate judge’s] order; and you-all can proceed as you
choose from this point.”

This oral statement suggests that the respondent either (1) viewed the matter as
judicial action on the associate judge’s proposed order, even though relator
specifically filed a request for a de novo hearing, or (2) intended to sign a de novo
order. Regardless of what respondent thought, the mandamus record neither
contains a written order that disposes of the de novo disqualification issue, nor a
refusal to rule on the de novo disqualification issue.
Mandamus relief may be based on oral ruling only if the ruling is a “clear,
specific, and enforceable order that is adequately shown by the record.” In re
Cypress Tex. Lloyds, No. 14-11-00579-CV, 2011 WL 3805911, at *2 (Tex. App.—

2
Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 25, 2011, orig. proceeding.) (citing In re Baldridge, No.
14–06–00647–CV, 2006 WL 2167239, * 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2006, orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding)). Accordingly, we conclude this court has no
subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter pending before respondent.
We dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for want of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.

3