Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

January 30, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00036-CV

IN RE JEAN Y. JABBOR, JENNIS. LLC, AND HREAL LLC, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-54795

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 17, 2020, relators Jean Y. Jabbor, Jennis LLC, and HReal LLC 

filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §

22.221 (Supp.); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to 

compel the Honorable Dedra Davis, presiding judge of the 270th District Court of 

Harris County, to vacate the October 22, 2019 order re-instating the case.
2

As the party seeking relief, relators have the burden of providing this court 

with a sufficient record to establish their right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. 

Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); Tex. R. App. P. 

52.7(a).

Relators argue that because the trial court signed its order reinstating the case 

after its plenary jurisdiction had allegedly expired, such order is void. Relators are 

not entitled to mandamus relief for two reasons.

First, “[a]s a rule, mandamus is not available to compel an action which has 

not first been demanded and refused.” Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712, 723 

(Tex. 1991). But such requirement is excused when the request would have been 

futile and the trial court’s refusal little more than a formality. Id. “To determine 

whether a request would have been futile, appellate courts examine whether the 

request would have added anything for the court’s consideration.” In re Brown, 277 

S.W.3d 474, 483 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding) 

(plurality op.); In re RH White Oak, LLC, 442 S.W.3d 492, 503 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding). The record does not show that relators 

requested the trial court to vacate the reinstatement order as void and that such 

request was refused.1 Nor does the record show that making such request would not 

have added anything for the court’s consideration.

1

“After expiration of plenary power, a trial court still may sign an order declaring a prior judgment 

or order to be void because the trial court signed the prior judgment or order after expiration of the court’s 

plenary power.” In re Martinez, 478 S.W.3d 123, 126 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, orig. 

proceeding).
3

Second, arguments not presented to the trial court will not be considered in 

the review of a petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 

S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). “It is well established that 

arguments not presented to the trial court will not be considered in a petition for writ 

of mandamus.” In re RH White Oak, LLC, No. 14-15-00789-CV, 2016 WL 3213411, 

at *9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 9, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) 

(quoting In re Advance Payroll Funding, Ltd., 254 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding)). This rule—that arguments must first be presented 

to the trial court—applies even to complaints that an order or judgment is void 

because the trial court lacked jurisdiction. See In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506, 510 

(Tex. 2017). The record does not show that relators have presented the arguments 

stated in their petition to the trial court.

For these reasons, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.