Court Opinion

ID: 9907318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 07:10:05.061933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:01.439753
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed December 1, 2023

                                       In the
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-01209-CV

 IN RE STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
             AND JERI CHARLOTTE RAMOS, Relators

            Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2
                             Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-02251-B

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia
                            Opinion by Justice Carlyle
      Before the Court are relators’ November 30, 2023 petition for writ of

mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief. In their petition, relators

challenge a trial court order compelling their respective depositions. In their

emergency motion, relators seek to stay the depositions pending our action on the

petition.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.

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

proceeding). The relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient
record to show it is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.

1992) (orig. proceeding).

      Relators’ petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2). For

instance, relator attempted to swear to the authenticity of the documents in the record

using an attorney’s verification. But the verification is defective because it is written

in relation to a separate lawsuit and is signed by an attorney who does not appear to

be counsel of record.

      Alternatively, notwithstanding these defects, after reviewing relator’s petition

and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate

entitlement to mandamus relief. See In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 05-

23-01062-CV, 2023 WL 7984390, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 17, 2023, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

      We also deny relators’ emergency motion for temporary relief as moot.

                                             /Cory L. Carlyle//
231209f.p05                                  CORY L. CARLYLE
                                             JUSTICE

                                          –2–