Court Opinion

ID: 9646025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 06:09:28.676386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:33.847305
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed August 15, 2023

                                        In the
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00777-CV

               IN RE KAZIM OLADOTUN OYENUGA, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 470th Judicial District Court
                            Collin County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. 470-52919-2022

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia
                             Opinion by Justice Carlyle
      In his August 8, 2023 “petition for writ proceedings relief,” which we construe

as a petition for writ of mandamus, relator asks this Court to compel the trial court

to vacate a post-answer default judgment entered against him in a divorce

proceeding. Also before the Court is relator’s separate motion to stay.

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

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

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

It is relator’s burden to provide a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus
relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see

also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1).

      Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure in numerous respects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.3(a)–(k), 52.7(a). For

instance, a petition seeking mandamus relief must include a certification stating that

the relator “has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in

the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or

record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Relator failed to certify his petition.

      Additionally, Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires a relator to file an appendix with his

petition that contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any

other document showing the matter complained of.” Rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the

relator to file with his petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is

material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding.”

The only documents included in relator’s record are a purported e-filing receipt and

a purported email forwarding the same to the trial court and opposing counsel. These

documents are neither certified nor sworn copies. They also form an incomplete

record based on the relief relator seeks.

      Additionally and alternatively, based on relator’s petition and the record

before us, we conclude that relator has failed to establish entitlement to mandamus

relief on the merits. The extraordinary nature of the mandamus remedy and the

requirement that a party seeking mandamus relief exercise diligence both mandate

                                            –2–
that arguments not presented to the trial court cannot first be considered in an

original proceeding seeking mandamus. In re Floyd, No. 05-16-00491-CV, 2016 WL

2353874, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Relator’s petition relies on his argument that he has satisfied the Craddock elements;

but the petition and record do not reflect that he raised this argument in the trial

court. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a).

      We also deny relator’s motion to stay as moot.

                                           /Cory L. Carlyle//
230777f.p05                                CORY L. CARLYLE
                                           JUSTICE

                                         –3–