Court Opinion

ID: 9780889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 06:08:10.581754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:16.374924
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed August 28, 2023

                                       In the
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00813-CV

            IN RE DYNAMIC SLR, INC., MOHAMMAD ELASHI,
                  AND SYNAPTIC SOLAR, LLC, Relators

           Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 4
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-04389-D

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia
                            Opinion by Justice Carlyle

      Before the Court is relators’ August 21, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus

wherein relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by denying relators’

motion to abate.

      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).
       “Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the

applicable procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide

the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” In re Phung Van Tran,

No. 05-14-01551-CV, 2014 WL 7234616, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 19, 2014,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citations omitted). 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.).

       Rule 52.3 requires relators to file an appendix containing “a certified or sworn

copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter

complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Here, relators included an appendix

containing a purported copy of a July 10, 2023 order denying relators’ plea in

abatement. But it is not a “certified or sworn copy.”

       The rules of appellate procedure require relators to file, among other things,

“a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim

for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P.

52.7(a)(1). Here, relators filed a mandamus record. Some of the documents included

in the record are properly authenticated.1 But relators’ mandamus record includes

       1
         Specifically, relators’ mandamus record includes (1) a certified reporter’s record of the
July 10, 2023 hearing and (2) an affidavit by one of relators’ attorneys authenticating copies of

                                              –2–
purported copies of real parties in interest’s original petition, relators’ motion to

abate, and relators’ supplemental briefing in support of relators’ motion to abate, but

these are not “certified or sworn” copies. The docket sheet in the record also reflects

that real parties in interest filed a supplement to their second amended petition, but

relators did not include this material pleading in their mandamus record.

       Accordingly, we conclude that relators failed to meet their burden to provide

a sufficient record. We thus deny relators’ petition without prejudice. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a), 52.9.

                                                 /Cory L. Carlyle//
230813f.p05                                      CORY L. CARLYLE
                                                 JUSTICE

various docket sheets, real parties in interest’s second amended petition in the suit below, and a
temporary restraining order entered in a different suit.

                                              –3–