Fifteenth Court of Appeals Denies Mandamus Challenging Business Court Trial Setting in Minerals Dispute
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied a mandamus petition filed by Nicholas Kreines, David P. Ryan, and Liberty Mineral Partners LLC seeking to set aside Business Court Division 3B Judge Patrick K. Sweeten's January 29, 2026 order in ES3 Minerals, LLC v. Kreines. The court held that relators failed to establish entitlement to mandamus relief and denied their emergency motion to stay trial commencement.
Background and Procedural Posture
In this original proceeding, relators Nicholas Kreines, David P. Ryan, and Liberty Mineral Partners LLC sought extraordinary relief from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to compel Business Court Division 3B Judge Patrick K. Sweeten to set aside an order entered January 29, 2026, in the underlying litigation styled ES3 Minerals, LLC v. Nicholas Kreines, David P. Ryan, and Liberty Mineral Partners LLC (Cause No. 24-BC03B-0005). The relators filed their mandamus petition on February 9, 2026, accompanied by a motion for emergency relief requesting a stay of trial commencement.
The Court's Ruling
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals issued a brief memorandum opinion denying relief. The court's analysis was succinct:
Relators have not established they are entitled to mandamus relief.The court provided no further explanation for its conclusion. The panel consisted of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris, who issued the decision per curiam on February 18, 2026.
Limited Precedential Value
The memorandum opinion provides minimal reasoning and leaves significant questions unanswered. The nature of Judge Sweeten's January 29 order—whether it involved discovery rulings, motion practice, trial scheduling, or substantive legal determinations—is not disclosed in the opinion. The specific arguments advanced by relators and the reasons for their failure to establish entitlement to mandamus relief are similarly unexplained. The opinion confirms only that the Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied both the mandamus petition and the related emergency motion to stay trial commencement, without providing guidance on the underlying merits or the court's reasoning.