Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-01069-CV IN RE UATP MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Adventure Park and UA 1604, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Original Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 10, 2024 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On December 7, 2023, Relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion to stay proceedings pending this court’s disposition of Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. The next day, we granted the emergency motion, stayed all proceedings, and requested a response from Real Parties in Interest. Having considered the petition and response, we lift our stay and deny the relief sought.

To obtain mandamus relief, Relators bore the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish their right to relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).

Relators complain that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering overly broad discovery in

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020CI17722, styled Eric Crooks and Maryann Crooks, Individually and as Next Friends of V.C., a Minor v. UATP Management, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Adventure Park; UA 1604, LLC d/b/a Urban Air; Fun Spot Manufacturing, LLC; and ABEO North America, Inc., pending in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.

04-23-01069-CV

its November 27, 2023 ruling, but the record includes only the judge’s notes indicating its intent to issue grant Real Parties in Interest’s motion to compel discovery.

As we have previously determined, “a judge’s notes are for his or her own convenience and form no part of the record.” In re A.W., 384 S.W.3d 872, 873 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.). Further, “a judge’s notes or docket entry are not an adequate substitute for a written order in a mandamus proceeding.” In re Robins & Morton Group, No. 04-16-00045-CV, 2016 WL 2584526, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 4, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing In re Rivera, No. 04-12-00025-CV, 2012 WL 219591, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 25, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)).

Because the record does not contain an order for this court to evaluate for an abuse of discretion, Relators have not provided this court with a record sufficient to establish their claim for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requiring “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of”); In re Pesca, No. 04-17-00464-CV, 2017 WL 3270332, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 2, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Accordingly, Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); In re Rivera, 2012 WL 219591, at *1. We lift the stay imposed by our December 8, 2023 order.

PER CURIAM

-2-