COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: LOVING COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT Relator. § § § § § No. 08-22-00243- CV
AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
IN MANDAMUS

O P I N I O N Relator , Loving County Appraisal District (Loving CAD) , filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from an order issued by Judge Rodney Satterwhite, Senior Judge of the 441st Judicial District Court of Midland County sitting on the 143 rd D istrict Court of Loving County, denying its request for a temporary injunction

. For the reasons set forth below, we den y the petition.
BACKGROUND Loving CAD alleges in its petition that it filed a lawsuit against Ysidro Renteria, both individually and in his capacity as a member of the Loving County Commissioner’s Court , seeking a declaratory judgment that he is not qualified to be a member of Loving CAD board because he is not a resident of Loving County. It also named the other member s of the Loving County2 Commissioner’s Court in their official capacit ies and asked the trial court for a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner’s Court to nominate a replacement board member in Renteria’s place

. The Commissioner’s Court, which apparently has complete control over who sits on the Loving
CAD board , sought to recall and replace all of the board members who supported the lawsuit

. In
response , Loving CAD filed an application for a temporary injunction to prevent the Commissioner’s Co urt from recalling any of the board members. After a hearing, t he trial court denied the application for a temporary injunction. This petition for a writ of mandamus followed.
DISCUSSION “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when a re l a tor can show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and no adequate appellate remedy exists.” In re J.A.L. , 645 S.W.3d 922, 924 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2022, orig. proceeding) . “An appellate court rarely interferes with a trial court’s exercise of discretion.” In re Limon , 130 S.W.3d 158, 159 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2003, orig. proceeding ). To receive mandamus relief , the relator bears the burden of proving both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that it has no adequate remedy on appeal

. In re J.A.L. , 645 S.W.3d at 924

. Part of this burden includes providing this Court with a record sufficient to establish a right to relief. In re Williams , No. 08

- 22

- 00 051

- CV, 2022 WL 1210574, at *1 (Tex. App.

— El Paso April 25, 2022, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op.) (citing Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) ). The record must include “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’ s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7( A )(1) . Relator must also provide “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evid ence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7( B )

.3 Loving CAD has not provided the Court with a record sufficient to establish its claim for relief. While it provided the trial court’s or der denying its application for a temporary injunction, it did not provide the underlying petition, its application for a temporary injunction, or the defendants ’ opposition to the application. Further, the petition filed with the Court establishes that the trial court held a hearing on the application for a temporary injunction on November 21, 2022

. But Loving CAD did not include a transcript of the hearing, admit ted exhibit s , or a statement that no testimony was taken related to its application for a temporary injunction. Due to the ins ufficient mandamus record, we are unable to determine whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion
in denying Loving CAD’ s application for a temporary injunction. See In re Williams , 2022 WL 1210574, at *1 . As a result, we must deny Loving CAD’s petition for a writ of mandamus. 

### C ONCLUSION For the mentioned reasons, we deny Loving CAD’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

L ISA J. SOTO , Justice March 2, 2023 Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto , JJ

.