DENY and Opinion Filed March 27, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00283-CV IN RE ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC, Relator Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-01615 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Breedlove In its March 24, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus, relator seeks relief from the trial court’s oral ruling granting real party in interest’s motion to increase the juror expense reimbursement in the underlying action.

Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires the relator to file an appendix that includes a certified or sworn copy of the order complained of, “or any other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Although an appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus based on a court’s oral pronouncements, it may do so only if the trial court’s ruling is a clear, specific, and enforceable order that is adequately shown by the record. In re Penney, No. 05–14–00503–CV, 2014 WL 2532307, at * 2, n. 3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

An appellate court can determine whether an oral order meets these criteria by reviewing the reporter’s record from the hearing. In re Penney, 2014 WL 2532307 at * 2; see also In re Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835, at *1 n. 1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec.11, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Here, the trial court has not signed a written order, and relator has not provided a reporter's record of the hearing at which the oral ruling was made. Under these circumstances, the record is insufficient for mandamus review. See In re Cokinos, No. 05–16–01331–CV, 2016 WL 7163968, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Having denied the petition, we also deny relator’s motion for expedited relief as moot.

/Maricela Breedlove/ MARICELA BREEDLOVE JUSTICE

230283F.P05

–2–