Court Opinion

ID: 9964880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 06:10:56.15423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:45.403577
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 24, 2024

                                   S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-24-00476-CV

               IN RE ELECTRONICS RESEARCH, INC. AND
                   E R I INSTALLATIONS, INC., Relators

           Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 4
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-24-00060-D

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Garcia
                            Opinion by Justice Garcia
      Before the Court is relators’ April 22, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.

Relators challenge the trial court’s April 15, 2024 order wherein the trial court

denied relators’ Motion for Protection and granted real party in interest’s Motion to

Compel Jurisdictional Discovery Regarding Defendants’ Special Appearance.

      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). 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.).

      Here, relators filed an appendix with their petition and a separate mandamus

record. But none of the documents relators included in their appendix and record is

a sworn or certified copy as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). We thus conclude relators failed to meet

their burden to provide a sufficient record. In any event, even if relators cured this

defect, we conclude that relators failed to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion.

      Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a).

      Also before the Court is relators’ April 22, 2024 motion for immediate

temporary relief. We deny relators’ motion as moot.

      Additionally, relators’ separately filed mandamus record contains unredacted

sensitive data, including a minor’s full birth date, in violation of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. Accordingly, we strike relators’ separately

                                         –2–
     filed mandamus record.

                                /Dennise Garcia/
240476F.P05                     DENNISE GARCIA
                                JUSTICE

                              –3–