Court Opinion

ID: 9554476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 07:08:10.242677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:26.385888
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed August 2, 2023

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00737-CV

                   IN RE NICHOLAS D. MOSSER, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 471st Judicial District Court
                            Collin County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. 471-06006-2019

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                           Opinion by Justice Molberg
      Before the Court is relator’s July 26, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator asks this Court to “instruct Respondent to vacate her orders, grant his

continuance, rule on the pending discovery motions, [and] compel Real Parties in

Interest’s responses to discovery.” He also asks this Court to “direct Respondent to

vacate her order, strike Real Party in Interest’s Summary Judgment and enter orders

permitting Relator to conduct any discovery.”

      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). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record

to show he is entitled to 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).

      To the extent relator (1) argues that the trial court purportedly refused to

continue a July 21, 2023 summary-judgment hearing, (2) asks this Court to strike

real parties in interest’s summary-judgment evidence, and (3) asks this Court to

vacate a purported ruling on a motion to compel, after reviewing relator’s petition

and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to meet his burden to

provide a sufficient record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1)–(2). In any

event, we further conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to

mandamus relief based on the petition and record before us. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). We also note that it appears relator may have identified the wrong

respondent with respect to his motion for continuance, but it is not clear on the record

before us. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a), (d)(2); see also In re Read, 05-22-01247-CV,

2022 WL 17828925, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 21, 2022, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.).

      To the extent relator asks this Court to vacate the trial court’s summary-

judgment ruling, we conclude relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to

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

      To the extent relator asks this Court to vacate any other orders or for any other

relief, relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules Appellate Procedure.

                                          –2–
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(d)(3), (f)–(i). Thus, the remainder of relator’s petition does

not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for

consideration of mandamus relief; therefore, we deny the remainder of relator’s

petition. See In re Jones, No. 05-23-00492-CV, No. 05-23-00493-CV, 2023 WL

4101440, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 21, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

      Also before the Court is relator’s August 1, 2023 motion for emergency stay.

We deny the motion as moot.

                                            /Ken Molberg//
230737f.p05                                 KEN MOLBERG
                                            JUSTICE

                                         –3–