Court Opinion

ID: 9414588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 06:11:47.323325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.693677
License: Public Domain

DENY and Opinion Filed July 31, 2023

                                        In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00744-CV

                  IN RE NORTH PONDEROSA, LLC, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-06-03299

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                            Opinion by Justice Molberg
      Relator’s July 28, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus challenges the 2015

final judgment as void. Generally, entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to

demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an

adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–

36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). When a trial court issues a void order, however,

relator need not show it did not have an adequate appellate remedy. In re Sw. Bell

Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

      After reviewing the petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator

has failed to show entitlement to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny the
petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Having denied the

petition, we also deny as moot relator’s July 28, 2023 emergency motion for

temporary relief.

230744f.p05                            /Ken Molberg//
                                       KEN MOLBERG
                                       JUSTICE

                                    –2–