Court Opinion

ID: 9398379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 06:09:58.052073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.459390
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed May 26, 2023

                                        In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00511-CV

   IN RE KARLA D. STOVER AND ROBERT J.S. THOMPSON, Relators

           Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-07079

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel
                            Opinion by Justice Miskel
      Before the Court is relators’ May 25, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus

wherein relators seek relief from the trial court’s denial of their motion to stay.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to demonstrate that the trial

court clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal.

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

proceeding). Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record

to show they are entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.

1992) (orig. proceeding). Because the parties in an original proceeding assemble

their own record, this Court strictly enforces the requirements of rule 52 to ensure
the integrity of the mandamus record. In re Vasquez, No. 05-15-00592-CV, 2015

WL 2375504, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 18, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

      Relators’ record does not comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 52. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2). Relators’ petition shows that

the trial court held a hearing on their motion to stay, but relators did not include

either a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony or a statement

that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained. See id. As

a result, we conclude that relators have failed to meet their burden to provide a

sufficient record.

      Alternatively, were we to suspend operation of rule 52.7(a)(2), after reviewing

relators’ petition and the record before us, we conclude that relators have failed to

demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

      Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny

relators’ motion for emergency stay of proceedings as moot.

                                           /Emily Miskel//
230511f.p05                                EMILY MISKEL
                                           JUSTICE

                                        –2–