LMC COMPLETE v. BURKE, 261 S.W.3d 749 (Tex.App. [1st] 2008)

LMC COMPLETE AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Appellant, v. Ronald BURKE, Appellee.

No. 01-06-00694-CV.Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston.
August 31, 2006.

Case Number: 01-06-00694-CV 09/06/2007 Case stored in record room 07/02/2007 Emergency stay disposed proceeding denied 07/02/2007 Petition for Writ of Mandamus disposed proceeding denied 07/02/2007 Fax Cover Letter 07/02/2007 Phone call from Clerk’s Office 06/29/2007 Supplement to clerk’s/reporter’s record 06/28/2007 petition for writ of mandamus filed 06/28/2007 Appendix Filed 06/28/2007 Case Record Filed 06/28/2007 Motion for emergency stay filed

On Appeal from the 127th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2004-21750; Sharolyn P. Wood, Judge.

Clifford L. Harrison, Harrison, Bettis, Staff, McFarland Weems, L.L.P., Houston, for Appellant.

John C. Hampton, D. Matthew Freeman, Matt Freeman Associates, Houston, for Appellee.

Panel consists of Justices KEYES, ALCALA, and BLAND.

ORDER
PER CURIAM.

Appellant LMC Automotive, Inc., has filed an emergency motion requesting that our court waive the security required to suspend enforcement of the judgment on appeal from the trial court in the above-referenced cause. See TEX.R.APP. P. 24. Our court expedited consideration of the motion and requested a response. After reviewing the motion, the response, and the attached exhibits, we conclude that LMC has not demonstrated that it is entitled to relief. LMC did not provide a copy of the trial court’s order denying its request for a bond reduction, nor did it provide a record of the evidentiary hearing on the motion that took place in the trial court. Thus, we have an insufficient basis upon which to review the trial court’s decision. See TEX.R.APP. P. 24.4 (providing for appellate review of the trial court’s order). In addition, LMC makes no showing that posting a bond to secure the judgment would cause it “substantial economic harm,” as required under the rule governing supersedeas bond reductions. See TEX.R.APP. P. 24.2(b).

Accordingly, the motion to waive security to suspend enforcement of the judgment is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.