law-mandamus-standard

law-mandamus-standard, no adequate remedy by appeal, adequacy of regular appellate remedies |
interlocutory appeals |

MANDAMUS STANDARD

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when a trial court clearly abuses
its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal.   In re Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Prot.
Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637, 643 (Tex. 2009); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex.
2004).   A trial court commits a clear abuse of discretion when its action is “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to
amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (quoting
CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1996)). With respect to factual issues, matters are committed to
the trial court’s discretion, and the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. In
re Parnham, 263 S.W.3d 97, 101 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (citing Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992)). The relator must establish that the trial court reasonably could
have reached only one decision. Id. “An appellate remedy is ‘adequate’ when any benefits to mandamus
review are outweighed by the detriments.” In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136.
Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by
principles of equity. In re Roxsane R., 249 S.W.3d 764, 771 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, orig.
proceeding) (citing In re Users Sys. Servs., Inc., 22 S.W.3d 331, 337 (Tex. 1999); Rivercenter Assocs. v.
Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993)). One of these equitable principles is that “equity aids the diligent
and not those who slumber on their rights.” Id. (citing Rivercenter Assocs., 858 S.W.2d at 367). Thus,
mandamus relief may be denied when a party delays asserting its rights without justifiable explanation. Id.
(citing Rivercenter Assocs., 858 S.W.2d at 367). In Re Northrop (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 15, 2009)
(Hanks)
(SAPCR petition in intervention in DFPS/CPS suit to terminate parental rights, timeliness issue)
DENY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: Opinion by Justice Hanks
Before Justices Keyes, Alcala and Hanks
01-09-00814-CV In Re David Arnold Northrop
Appeal from 257th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Judy Warne

UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE, WHEN IS MANDAMUS RELIEF AVAILABLE?

To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator generally must show that the trial
court clearly abused its discretion and he has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.
W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision
so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.
2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). When a challenged order is void for lack of jurisdiction, the relator
is not required to establish that he has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re S.W. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d
602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam). Section 6.502 of the Texas Family Code provides for temporary support
while a suit for dissolution of a marriage is pending. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §6.502(a)(2) (Vernon 2006).
Generally, a person who willfully disobeys a valid court order is guilty of contempt and subject to imprisonment
for a prescribed period until he complies with the order. Ex parte Hall, 854 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1993) (orig.
proceeding). An order requiring temporary support payments is enforceable by contempt. Id. In Re Small,
NO. 14-08-01075-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 7, 2009)(Anderson)
(civil contempt is void in violation of the bankruptcy stay)

Standard of Review | Mandamus criteria | Requisites for Mandamus Relief

To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, a relator must show that the trial court clearly
abused its discretion and left him no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257,
259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that is so arbitrary
and unreasonable as to constitute a clear and prejudicial error of law, or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or
apply the law. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per
curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). To determine if a party has
an adequate remedy by appeal, we ask whether “any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the
detriments.” In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). An appeal
is an inadequate remedy when a party stands to lose a substantial right. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 842.

[4] An appeal from a trial court’s discovery order is not adequate if (1) the appellate court would not be able to
cure the trial court’s error on appeal; (2) the party’s ability to present a viable claim or defense is vitiated or
severely compromised; or (3) missing discovery cannot be made a part of the appellate record. In re Ford
Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 843).In Re
Lesikar,NO. 14-09-00016-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 7, 2009)(Guzman)(scope of remand,
discovery mandamus denied)(segregation of attorney's fees required, no fees for non-suited claims) (jury trial
improperly denied)

MANDAMUS STANDARD. To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, relator must show
that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and she has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Team
Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). On February 2, 2009, the trial court signed
and entered a final judgment in the underlying case. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex.
2001). Relator, therefore, has an adequate remedy by appeal. Moreover, relator’s petition does not comply
with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), and 52.7(a)(1). In Re
Riggins, NO. 14-09-00255-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 7, 2009)(per curiam denial of mandamus,
mandamus standard not satisfied)

Mandamus relief is available when the relator establishes a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no
adequate appellate remedy. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as
to constitute a clear and prejudicial error of law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). With respect to the resolution of fact issues, we will not substitute our judgment for the trial
court's. See id. Therefore, the relator must establish the trial court reasonably could have reached only one
decision. See id. at 840. On the other hand, a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or
applying the law to the facts; therefore, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly
constitutes an abuse of discretion, even in an unsettled area of law. See id.; Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d
920, 927-28 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding). In re Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital LLC (Tex.App-
Houston [1 4th Dist.] Dec. 18, 2008)(Hedges)(Tex.App- Houston [1 4th Dist.] Dec. 18, 2008)(Hedges)(arbitration
mandamus denied)(arbitration, nonsignatories, jury w aiver, nonsignatories, agency theory, choice of law
preemption, forum preemption)
[W]e hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to extend the jury waiver on the basis of
allegations alone. Because the right to a jury trial implicates constitutional guarantees, we will not lightly infer
or extend a contractual jury waiver absent proof that the parties intended it to include claims against
nonsignatories.
MOTION OR WRIT DENIED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Hudson and Boyce
14-08-00819-CV In Re: Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital, L.L.C. and Credit Suisse First Boston, L.
L.C.--Appeal from 165th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Elizabeth Ray

HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |