Motion to Clarify Granted; Motion for Reconsideration Denied; Order filed September 3, 2020

In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-19-00912-CV ____________ BOOSTER FUELS, INC., Appellant V. FUEL HUSKY, LLC D/B/A INSTAFUEL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019-57856 ORDER On July 23, 2020, we issued a ruling denying appellee’s application for temporary orders. Appellee now requests that we clarify that ruling by explaining the basis for our decision and that we reconsider our decision. We grant appellee’s motion for clarification and deny his motion to reconsider his application.

After taking appellee’s application for temporary orders under advisement, this court requested a response from appellant to appellee’s application. In appellant’s response, appellant informed this court that the trial court had previously conducted a hearing on the merits of appellee’s application for temporary orders and had declined to grant the requested relief. Appellant provided the transcript of that hearing in its response. Because this court is not a fact-finding court, in order to grant appellee’s application for relief, we would have to direct the trial court to hold a hearing on appellee’s application. See In re Geomet Recycling LLC, 578 S.W.3d 82, 92 n.2 (Tex. 2019) The trial court held a hearing on the same facts as those alleged in our court on June 9, 2020 and declined to grant relief.

Accordingly, it would be a waste of judicial resources to order the trial court to conduct a hearing on the same facts. For the same reason, we decline to reconsider appellee’s application.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Spain, Bourliot.