Background
Libby Sandoval Brickey sought mandamus relief in an underlying Fort Bend County divorce proceeding. She challenged an associate judge’s April 24, 2026 rendition granting Chad Christopher Brickey’s motion to disqualify her additional counsel, Alberto Garcia, III.
On July 16, 2026, Brickey moved to dismiss her mandamus petition voluntarily. She explained that the trial court had signed an amended order that rendered her requested mandamus relief moot.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas First Court of Appeals granted Brickey’s motion and dismissed her petition for a writ of mandamus. It also dismissed all pending motions as moot.
Although the dismissal motion lacked the certificate of conference required to state whether the real party in interest opposed the requested relief, more than ten days passed without any party responding to the motion. The court therefore acted on the unopposed request without addressing the merits of the attorney-disqualification ruling.
Key Takeaways
- An amended trial-court order may moot a pending mandamus challenge to an earlier ruling.
- The court dismissed the proceeding at the relator’s request and did not decide whether disqualifying counsel was proper.
- The absence of a certificate of conference did not prevent dismissal where the response period passed and no party opposed the motion.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that mandamus relief depends on a live controversy. When the trial court changes the challenged ruling so that the requested appellate relief is no longer necessary, voluntary dismissal may end the original proceeding without a merits determination.
Practitioners should also note that the court acknowledged the motion’s procedural defect but granted it after no opposition was filed within the applicable response period.