Court Opinion

ID: 9948003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 07:13:12.321891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:53.690205
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed March 1, 2024

                                     S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  No. 05-24-00022-CV

   IN RE JI AUDIO HOLDINGS, LLC, JAWBONE ACQUISITION, LLC,
                   AND DANIEL SETTON, Relators

          Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-16946

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy
                           Opinion by Justice Goldstein
      Before the Court are relators’ January 16, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus

and January 18, 2023 motion for temporary relief. In their petition, relators challenge

a trial court’s order denying their motion to transfer venue. In their motion for

temporary relief, relators ask for a stay of the underlying proceeding pending this

Court’s action on the petition.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). After reviewing relators’ petition and the record before us, we conclude

that relators have failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

      Venue determinations are generally incidental trial rulings that are correctable

on appeal and thus not subject to mandamus review. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 15.064; Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals,

929 S.W.2d 440, 441 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding). Relators seek

mandamus review of the trial court’s venue determination under a statutory

exception to this general rule. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 15.0642.

The statute provides that, subject to certain time limitations, “[a] party may apply

for a writ of mandamus with an appellate court to enforce the mandatory venue

provisions of this chapter.” Id. Relators, however, seek to avoid application of a

mandatory venue provision and transfer the case to a permissive venue. We question

whether this constitutes enforcement of a mandatory venue provision under section

15.0642. And relators have failed to adequately brief the issue. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3(h). Therefore, we conclude that relators have failed to demonstrate entitlement

to mandamus relief.

      Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

                                        –2–
     We also deny as moot relators’ motion for temporary relief.

                                        /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
                                        BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
                                        JUSTICE
240022F.P05

                                      –3–