IN RE: ES ENERGY SOLUTIONS (2010)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Before the Court is relators' petition for writ of mandamus, naming the Honorable Carlos Cortez, Judge of the 44th Judicial District Court, and the Honorable John Ovard, Presiding Judge of the First Administrative Judicial Region, as respondents.   Relators contend Judge Cortez abused his discretion in not recusing himself from the underlying case and Judge Ovard abused his discretion by denying the motion to recuse after it had been referred to him.   The facts and issues regarding the motion to recuse are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them in detail herein.

As to Judge Ovard, we conclude on the record before us that we lack jurisdiction to review his denial of the motion to recuse.   See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004);  In re Hill, No. 05-10-00463-CV, 2010 WL 1633716, at *1 (Tex.App.-Dallas Apr. 23, 2010, orig. proceeding);  In re Valladolid, Nos. 07-06-0173-CV and 07-06-0174-CV, 2006 WL 1997401, at *2 (Tex.App.-Amarillo July 18, 2006, orig. proceeding).   Accordingly, we DISMISS relators' petition for writ of mandamus as to Judge Ovard.

As to Judge Cortez, relators have an adequate remedy at law if the denial of the motion to recuse was erroneous;  accordingly, mandamus relief is not available to them.   See, e.g., In re McKee, 248 S.W.3d 164, 164 (Tex.2007);  In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428-29 (Tex.1998).   Accordingly, we DENY relators' petition for writ of mandamus with respect to Judge Cortez.   We further DENY relators' motion for emergency relief and supplemental motion for emergency relief as MOOT.

ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE