In Re Eddie Hodges Jr v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued September 25, 2025.

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-25-00321-CV
———————————
IN RE EDDIE HODGES JR., Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

1
Relator filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for reconsideration en banc of
this Court’s August 28, 2025 opinion. We deny the motion for rehearing, and
withdraw our August 28, 2025 opinion and issue this opinion in its place. Our
disposition remains the same. We deny Relator’s motion for reconsideration en
banc as moot. See In re Wagner, 560 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2018, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (“Because we issue a new opinion in
connection with the denial of rehearing, the motion for en banc reconsideration is
rendered moot.”); Richardson-Eagle, Inc. v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 213 S.W.3d
469, 472 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied); Brookshire Bros. v.
Smith, 176 S.W.3d 30, 40 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied).
Relator, Eddie Hodges Jr., filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging

the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss real party in interest Crystal Flack’s

suit against him.2 Relator requested that the Court vacate the order denying his

motion to dismiss and order the trial court to grant the same.

We conclude that relator has failed to establish that he is entitled to

mandamus relief, and therefore the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.

2
The underlying case is Crystal Flack v. Kennard Law, P.C., Alfonso Kennard, Jr.,
and Eddie Hodges, Jr., Cause No. 2024-88874 in the 281st District Court of
Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Christine Weems presiding.
2