Court Opinion

ID: 9377536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 07:08:59.580828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:14.868153
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed March 3, 2023

                                   S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00142-CV

     IN RE RUSSELL FINKELBERG AND KAREN GAUGG, Relators

           Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-21-02871-C

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Kennedy
                            Opinion by Justice Smith

      Before the Court is relators’ February 16, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus.

We deny the petition.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relators lack an adequate appellate remedy. In

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). A relator need not show that it does not have an adequate remedy by

appeal when the complained-of order is void. In re Banigan, 05-22-01084-CV, 2023

WL 166206, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 12, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
After reviewing relators’ petition and the record before us, we conclude that relators

have failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

      Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

                                           /Craig Smith/
                                           CRAIG SMITH
                                           JUSTICE
230142F.P05

                                         –2–