No. 14-07-00501-CVCourt of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston.
Memorandum Opinion filed June 25, 2007.
Case Number: 14-07-00501-CV 12/12/2008 Case stored in record room 10/10/2008 Petition for Writ of Mandamus disposed proceeding denied 09/10/2008 Electronic copies of brief posted to website 09/10/2008 Reply brief 08/27/2008 Brief filed. 08/26/2008 Phone call from Clerk’s Office 08/26/2008 Motion for Extension of Time disposed. Granted 08/25/2008 Motion for extension of time to file brief. 07/25/2008 Motion for Extension of Time disposed. Granted 07/24/2008 Motion for extension of time to file brief. 07/01/2008 Electronic copies of brief posted to website 06/30/2008 Brief filed. 06/10/2008 Electronic copies of brief posted to website 06/10/2008 Electronic copies of brief posted to website 05/30/2008 Brief on the Merits Requested 05/20/2008 Reply to petition for writ of mandamus 05/19/2008 response to petition for writ of mandamus 04/15/2008 Motion for Extension of Time disposed. Granted 04/14/2008 Notice of Appearance 04/14/2008 M/E/T to file response 03/17/2008 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response; mailbox rule does not apply 02/19/2008 Case forwarded to Court 02/05/2008 petition for writ of mandamus filed 02/05/2008 Appendix Filed
Original Proceeding Writ of Mandamus.
Panel consists of Justices YATES, EDELMAN, and SEYMORE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
On June 19, 2007, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also TEX. R. APP. PROC. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel Honorable Levi Benton, presiding judge of the 215th District Court of Harris County, to vacate his order denying relator’s motion to compel arbitration and to enter an order granting such motion.
Because relator failed to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, it has not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief sought. See TEX. R. APP. PROC. 52.3 (“[a]ll factual statements in the petition must be verified by affidavit made on personal knowledge”). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, without prejudice to our reconsideration of the petition upon presentation of a verification in compliance with TRAP 52.3.