mandamus-relief-criteria
A writ of mandamus will issue when a trial court clearly abuses its discretion and there is no
adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004).
A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re Poly-
America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337, 346–47 (Tex. 2008).
TEXAS SUPREME COURT & MANDAMUS RELIEF
MANDAMUS AFTER APPEAL FROM FINAL JUDGMENT
In Re Columbia Med. Center of Las Colinas, Inc., No. 09-0733 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(per curiam)
(exemplary damages reduced by mandamus after post-appeal final judgment)
Although our judgment did not expressly address the amount of punitive damages, the statute
capping punitive damages as measured against economic damages requires a reduction in punitive
damages as a matter of law. See Gen. Chem. Corp, 852 S.W.2d at 924. We hold that, regardless of
whether an appellate court judgment expressly commands it, trial courts must give effect to statutory
caps on damages when the parties raise the issue. Accordingly, to give full effect to our judgment
vacating a portion of economic damages, the trial court was required to reduce the punitive
damages award in compliance with the statutory cap. By failing to do so, the trial court abused its
discretion. See In re Poly-America, 262 S.W.3d at 346–47. Because this issue arises in connection
with a final judgment following an appeal to this Court, we conclude that Columbia now has no other
adequate remedy by appeal. For these reasons, and without hearing oral argument, see Tex. R.
App. P. 52.8(c), we grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its
order denying Columbia’s motion to modify the judgment, and to enter a final judgment making an
appropriate reduction of the punitive damages award. We trust the trial court will comply, and the writ
will issue only if it fails to do so.
IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, INC. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL
CENTER; from Dallas County
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 09-0733 IN RE COLUMBIA MED. CTR. OF LAS COLINAS, INC.
DISCOVERY IN HEALTH CARE LIABILITY CLAIMS: Adequate Remedy by Appeal
We finally consider whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy in this case. Collins argues that
mandamus is warranted because the trial court’s order thwarts important public policies embodied in
section 74.052(c). We agree. If the Legislature intended to provide health care liability
defendants with an informal, expedited means of evaluating the merits of a health care claimant’s
claims, then the order here undermines that purpose. Consequently, we hold that Collins has no
adequate remedy by appeal. See In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 469 (Tex. 2008).
In re Lester Collins, MD, No. 07-0737 (Tex. Jun. 5, 2009)(O'Neill)
(discovery mandamus, protective order lifted, ex parte contacts with witnesses)
CONTAINING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE SUITS: Is Mandamus Available?
“The most frequent use we have made of mandamus relief involves cases in which the very act of
proceeding to trial — regardless of the outcome — would defeat the substantive right involved.”[43]
Allowing this case to proceed to trial would effectively allow a shareholder to sue for damages
connected with a merger without giving the corporation’s board an opportunity to make such a
decision for itself. As that would defeat the substantive right the Legislature sought to protect, we
hold mandamus relief is warranted. In Re Schmitz, No. 07-0581 (Tex. May 22, 2009)(Brister)
(criteria for mandamus relief, shareholder derivative suit, sufficiency of pre-suit demand letter, notice)
If a trial court fails to enforce the demand requirements of article 5.14, there is no interlocutory appeal.[35] But that of
course does not preclude mandamus review.[36]
Mandamus may be available upon a showing that (1) a trial court clearly abused its discretion by failing to correctly
apply the law, and (2) the benefits and detriments of mandamus render appeal inadequate.[37] Dillingham
concedes that if her demand was inadequate, dismissal was the appropriate remedy.[38] Thus, the only remaining
question is whether an appeal could adequately address the error.
In balancing the benefits and detriments of delaying or interrupting a particular proceeding, we must consider the
purposes the Legislature was trying to accomplish.[39] Article 5.14 was adopted to preserve the principle that a
corporation should be run by its board of directors, not a disgruntled shareholder or the courts.[40] In some cases,
this goal will not be defeated merely because a trial court proceeds with a shareholder derivative suit despite an
inadequate demand.
For example, if one shareholder is entitled to proceed with a derivative action based on a proper demand, a board
gains little by mandamus review of an improper demand by someone else. The parties in a closely-held corporation
may have various claims between them that require litigation, regardless of whether a derivative claim is added to
the mix.[41] And a corporation’s interests may be adequately protected by article 5.14’s provision for recovery of
expenses if a shareholder suit is prosecuted “without reasonable cause or for an improper purpose.”[42]
But this case involves a multi-million dollar merger proceeding on an expedited schedule. As the merger has now
been completed, Lancer Corporation no longer exists. It is thus too late for its board to entertain a new analysis of
the competing merger offers, or authorize an inquiry by independent and disinterested directors. Assuming as we
must that the board would have given proper consideration to this matter had it received a proper demand, that
possibility is now foreclosed because the demand fell so woefully short.
“The most frequent use we have made of mandamus relief involves cases in which the very act of proceeding to trial
— regardless of the outcome — would defeat the substantive right involved.”[43] Allowing this case to proceed to trial
would effectively allow a shareholder to sue for damages connected with a merger without giving the corporation’s
board an opportunity to make such a decision for itself. As that would defeat the substantive right the Legislature
sought to protect, we hold mandamus relief is warranted.
Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and order the respondent to vacate its order and enter a
new order dismissing the plaintiff’s suit. We are confident the trial court will comply, and our writ will issue only if it
does not.
ARBITRATION MANDAMUS. A party denied the right to arbitrate pursuant to an agreement subject
to the FAA does not have an adequate remedy by appeal and is entitled to mandamus relief to
correct a clear abuse of discretion. In re L & L Kempwood Assocs., L.P., 9 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Tex.
1999). Under an abuse of discretion standard, we defer to the trial court’s factual determinations if
they are supported by evidence, but we review the trial court’s legal determinations de novo.
Brainard v. State, 12 S.W.3d 6, 30 (Tex. 1999); see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40
(Tex. 1992). Whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable is subject to de novo review. See J. M.
Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Tex. 2003).
In re Labatt Food Service, LP, No. 07-0419 (Tex. 2009)(Johnson)
(arbitration mandamus, arbitration of wrongful death claim by nonsignatories compelled)
FNC MANDAMUS. An adequate remedy by appeal does not exist when a motion to dismiss for
forum non conveniens is erroneously denied. See In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670, 679
(Tex. 2007).
Mandamus relief is available to enforce forum-selection agreements because there is no adequate
remedy by appeal when a trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to enforce a valid forum-
selection clause that covers the dispute. Lyon, 257 S.W.3d at 231; see also AIU, 148 S.W.3d at 115-
20. In Re International Profit Associates (Tex. 2009)(forum selection clause enforced by mandamus)