Court Opinion

ID: 9953930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-24 07:18:38.946316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:56.652039
License: Public Domain

Motion Denied; Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Opinion filed
March 21, 2024.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-24-00167-CV

IN RE ALYSSA ABRAMSON AND LASER GIRL MED SPA LLC, Relators

                         ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                           WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                              55th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 2022-74201

                                   OPINION

      On March 6, 2024, relators Alyssa Abramson and Laser Girl Med Spa LLC
filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.
§ 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this Court to
compel the Honorable Latasha Payne, presiding judge of the 55th District Court of
Harris County, to vacate the trial court’s January 26, 2024 order denying relators’
motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 74.351(b) of the Texas Civil Practices &
Remedies Code.

      On March 11, 2024, relators filed a motion to stay the underlying
proceedings pending resolution of their petition for writ of mandamus.

      Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial
court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party requesting mandamus relief has
no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Dawson, 550 S.W.3d 625, 628 (Tex. 2018)
(orig. proceeding) (per curiam). In this case, relators had a right to immediate
appellate review of the order denying relators’ motion to dismiss. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9) (authorizing interlocutory appeal from
order that “denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section
74.351(b)”)). The trial court signed the order denying relators’ motion to dismiss
on January 26, 2024. Relators’ notice of interlocutory appeal was due twenty days
thereafter—by February 15, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b). Relators did not
file an interlocutory appeal.    Instead, relators filed this petition for writ of
mandamus on March 6, 2024. A petition for writ of mandamus cannot be used as a
substitute for an interlocutory appeal. See In re Fontaine, No. 12-17-00400-CV,
2018 WL 720802, at *3-4 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 6, 2018, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.) (citing cases). Because an interlocutory appeal would have afforded
relators an adequate appellate remedy, mandamus is not appropriate. See In re
Lanier, No. 14-19-00918-CV, 2019 WL 6317781, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] Nov. 26, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (per curiam); In re Rent-
                                         2
a-Center, No. 14-15-00450-CV, 2015 WL 3979089, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] June 30, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (per curiam); In re Smart
Call, LLC, No. 14-13-00225-CV, 2013 WL 1197900, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] Mar. 26, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (per curiam).

      Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny
relators’ motion to stay.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Wilson.

                                         3