Opinion ID: 895210
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Is USAA entitled to mandamus relief?

Text: Finally, we must decide whether mandamus relief is appropriate. Deciding whether the benefits of mandamus outweigh the detriments requires us to weigh public and private interests, recognizing thatrather than categorical determinations  the adequacy of an appeal depends on the facts involved in each case. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 469 (Tex.2008); In re The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136-37 (Tex. 2004). In CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596-97 (Tex.1996), we conditionally granted mandamus relief ordering the trial court to grant CSR's special appearance in a toxic tort case. We held that extraordinary circumstances (namely the enormous number of potential claimants and the most efficient use of the state's judicial resources) warranted extraordinary relief, even though it was typically unavailable for the denial of a special appearance. CSR, 925 S.W.2d at 596; see also Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 308-09 (Tex.1994). And although mandamus is generally unavailable when a trial court denies summary judgment, no matter how meritorious the motion, that rule is based in part on the fact that trying a case in which summary judgment would have been appropriate does not mean the case will have to be tried twicea justification not applicable here. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., 275 S.W.3d at 465-66. USAA has already endured one trial in a forum that lacked jurisdiction (and then a subsequent appeal to the court of appeals and this Court) and is facing a second trial on a claim that we have just held to be barred by limitations. Two wasted trials are not [t]he most efficient use of the state's judicial resources. CSR, 925 S.W.2d at 596; cf. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., 275 S.W.3d at 466. Denying mandamus relief here would thwart the legislative intent that non-tolled TCHRA claims be brought within two years (as well as the tolling provision's inapplicability to suits filed with intentional disregard of proper jurisdiction), and we should not frustrate th[at] purpose[] by a too-strict application of our own procedural devices. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., 275 S.W.3d at 467. Because the extraordinary circumstances presented here merit extraordinary relief, we conditionally grant the writ and direct the trial court to grant USAA's motion for summary judgment. We are confident the trial court will comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not. Justice JOHNSON did not participate in the decision.