Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016

in Re Steve Watkins, SMW Projects, Inc., Ronald Winthrop, Winthrop & Associates, Inc., and Larry D. Robinson

in Re Steve Watkins, SMW Projects, Inc., Ronald Winthrop, Winthrop & Associates, Inc., and Larry D. Robinson
Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided April 18, 2016 · No. 09-16-00115-CV
in Re Steve Watkins, SMW Projects, Inc., Ronald Winthrop, Winthrop & Associates, Inc., and Larry D. Robinson

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________

NO. 09-16-00115-CV _________________

IN RE STEVE WATKINS, SMW PROJECTS, INC., RONALD WINTHROP, WINTHROP & ASSOCIATES, INC., AND LARRY D. ROBISON ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding

60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. B-195,177 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

Steve Watkins and SMW Projects, Inc., joined by Ronald Winthrop and Winthrop & Associates, Inc., and Larry D. Robison, petition for a writ of mandamus commanding that the 60th District Court of Jefferson County: (1) transfer Cause No. B-195,177 to Harris County; (2) grant Relators’ motions for a continuance of their responses to motion for summary judgment; (3) vacate its order quashing party and expert depositions; (4) order the real parties in interest, Burrow Global Construction, LLC and Burrow Global, LLC to identify which documents are responsive to which requests for production; (5) vacate its order sustaining objections by the real parties in interest, Gary Knight and Michael Burrow, to discovery; and (6) vacate its order setting aside deemed admissions by Knight and Burrow. After reviewing the petition for writ of mandamus and the mandamus record that accompanied the petition, we conclude that the relators have not shown that they are entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). We deny the petition seeking mandamus relief without prejudice. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). All pending motions for temporary relief are denied as moot.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 15, 2016

Opinion Delivered April 18, 2016

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.