Opinion issued July 30, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00499-CV

———————————

IN RE DAVID ALVAREZ, D&A ALVAREZ GROUP, LLC AND 2017 

YALE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, David Alvarez, D&A Alvarez Group, LLC and 2017 Yale 

Development, LLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the 

respondent trial judge to vacate his July 2, 2019 order granting the real parties in 

interests’ motions for partial summary judgment, which relators contend was entered 
2

in violation of a prior Rule 11 discovery agreement in the underlying proceeding.1 

This Court’s July 9, 2019 Order denied the relators’ emergency motion for 

temporary relief to stay the July 10, 2019 trial setting, and requested and received a 

response from the real parties in interest (“RPIs”) Steadfast Funding LLC, et al., who 

contended, among other things, that relators have an adequate appellate remedy. 

Relators filed a supplement to their petition attaching several exhibits, including a 

July 10, 2019 order rescheduling the trial to July 23, 2019.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when the relator can 

show both that: (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion or violated a duty 

imposed by law, and (2) there is no adequate remedy by way of appeal. In re Ford 

Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 

827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

Relators have an adequate remedy by appeal from any final judgment signed 

following a trial. See TEX.CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 51.012; Lehmann v. Har–Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (reciting general rule that absent statutory 

exception, appeals may be taken only from final judgments); see also Walker, 827 

S.W.2d at 839–40 (mandamus relief is not available when adequate appellate 

 

1 The underlying case is 2017 Yale Dev. LLC v. Steadfast Funding, LLC, et al., Cause 

No. 2016-64847, pending in the 190th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the 

Honorable Beau A. Miller presiding. With their petition, relators filed a notice of a 

related mandamus petition previously filed by the real parties in interest, which was 

assigned to appellate cause number 01-19-00463-CV.
3

remedy exists). The interlocutory order granting the RPIs’ motions for partial 

summary judgment will merge into the final judgment, allowing relators to raise 

their claims from this petition on direct appeal. See H.B. Zachry Co. v. Thibodeaux, 

364 S.W.2d 192, 193 (Tex. 1963) (per curiam) (holding that prior interlocutory 

orders merge into subsequent order disposing of remaining parties and issues, 

creating final and appealable judgment); see also In re Lopez, No. 14-12-00929-CV, 

2012 WL 4892870, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 16, 2012, orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus because relator had 

adequate appellate remedy upon final judgment, which will incorporate partial 

summary judgment).

Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition because relators have not 

established that their appellate remedy would be inadequate.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.