In re Grand Parkway Infrastructure, LLC

• Docket Number: 09-24-00117-CV
• Decision Date: 25 April 2024
• Parties: IN RE GRAND PARKWAY INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

1

IN RE GRAND PARKWAY INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC

No. 09-24-00117-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont

April 25, 2024

Submitted on April 24, 2024

Original Proceeding 253rd District Court of Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22-DC-CV-00421

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Grand Parkway Infrastructure, LLC argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its timely filed motion to compel arbitration, which it incorporated in its Original Answer, filed on May 2, 2022. According to Grand Parkway, the trial court conducted a hearing on its motion to compel on November 9, 2023, and denied it the same day. We deny Grand Parkway's petition.

We may grant a petition for mandamus to correct a trial court's abuse of discretion when the party may not obtain adequate relief through the exercise of its

2

right to file an ordinary appeal.^[1] An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for the guiding legal principles or supporting evidence.^[2] We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of reviewing the petition for mandamus against the detriments of conducting that review. ^[3] Mandamus review may be available if the relator establishes the trial court prevented the relator from filing an accelerated appeal.^[4]

No written order appears in the record that Grand Parkway filed to support its petition. That said, Grand Parkway represented in its petition that the trial court denied its motion to compel arbitration on November 9, 2023. When a trial court rules on a motion to compel arbitration, its ruling is subject to appeal.^[5] However, for the appeal to be timely it must be filed within twenty days after the trial court signs the order in which it rules on the motion to compel.^[6] The record that Grand Parkway

3

filed to support its petition doesn't show whether it attempted to file a notice to appeal and doesn't show the trial court has yet signed a written order denying Grand Parkway's motion to compel.

In its petition for mandamus relief, Grand Parkway notes that the general rule is that mandamus relief is unavailable when a party has an adequate remedy to correct the trial court's ruling by filing an interlocutory accelerated appeal.^[7] Grand Parkway neither explains why an accelerated appeal isn't available here, nor does it explain why it lacks an adequate remedy at law. For instance, Grand...