Court Opinion

ID: 9895649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 09:09:04.378659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:22.374089
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                  No. 06-23-00077-CV

              IN RE JENNIFER HEAIRET

             Original Mandamus Proceeding

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
        Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Relator, Jennifer Heairet, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to

direct the Honorable J. Andrew Bench, presiding judge of the 196th Judicial District Court of

Hunt County, Respondent, to enter an order transferring the underlying cause, as it relates to

H.L.B. and H.S.B., to Gregg County, and transferring the underlying cause, as it relates to

H.L.B., to Hopkins County. We deny the mandamus petition.

          “Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of

discretion . . . , and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law.” In re Blakeney, 254

S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (citing Cantu v. Longoria, 878

S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). The relator is obligated to “provid[e] this Court with a

sufficient record to establish [his] right to mandamus relief.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198–99

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. “[T]he relator ‘must

establish that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision,’ and that its

finding to the contrary is ‘arbitrary and unreasonable.’” In re Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 198

S.W.3d 778, 780 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Walker, 827 S.W.2d at

840).

          The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for a writ of mandamus, the

response of the real party in interest, the reply, the mandamus record, and the applicable law, and

having noted the lack of an evidentiary hearing, is of the opinion that the petition should be

denied.
                                                   2
            Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.1

                                                                   Jeff Rambin
                                                                   Justice

Date Submitted:               November 2, 2023
Date Decided:                 November 3, 2023

1
    As a result of our decision, we deny relator’s motion to stay as moot.
                                                             3