The Court of Appeals for the 11th District of Texas has rejected a request to jump into the fray regarding Odessa lawyer Gaven Norris’ lawsuit against the City of Odessa.
Last December, Norris filed a lawsuit against the City of Odessa alleging Mayor Javier Joven violated the Open Meetings Act by not allowing Norris and others to speak before the city council voted 5-2 to fire City Manager Michael Marrero and City Attorney Natasha Brooks Dec. 13 without explanation.
Norris also asked Ector County District Court Judge John Shrode to issue a temporary restraining order preventing the city from firing the pair and appointing interim replacements.
Shrode granted the TRO, but rescinded within hours without explanation.
On Jan. 9, the city held a special meeting to fire Marrero and Brooks again, but this time allowed members of the community to speak.
Norris filed motions asking Shrode to explain his reasons for rescinding the TRO. In legal terms, Norris wanted Shrode’s “findings of fact, conclusions of law,” but Shrode never obliged.
On Friday afternoon, attorney Lane Haywood filed for a “Writ of Mandamus” with the appellate court in Eastland.
Haywood asked the court to order Shrode to explain why he denied Norris’ request for the TRO.
The attorney argued that without Shrode’s explanation, Norris is legally prohibited from appealing Shrode’s decision.
Haywood argued Norris met the 20-day requirement to ask for Shrode’s reasons and because he did so, Shrode had a “mandatory duty” to make such findings and conclusions.
“Mandamus should issue where the trial court abuses its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by law,” Haywood wrote. “The writ should issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law.”
However, the Court of Appeals Monday swiftly denied Haywood’s motion.
In an email sent Monday, the court said Shrode was not required to hand down a written opinion.
Still pending before Shrode is a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that was filed by the city’s outside counsel, Jeff Whitfield.
Whitfield is arguing the lawsuit was rendered moot by the Jan. 9 meeting in which the public was heard.
A hearing on that motion is set for May 1.
