Court Opinion

ID: 9378935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 10:07:14.741569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:26.936743
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                     NO. 03-23-00036-CV

                              In re Carmen Carter-Faughtenbery

                     ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Carmen Carter Faughtenbery filed a wrongful death suit against Kourtney Voigt

alleging that Voight “negligently, with gross negligence or malice, or intentionally, created a

foreseeable medical emergency, and failed to exercise ordinary care to address it, which conduct

was a proximate cause of” the death of Faughtenbery’s son Tyson Lambeck. Faughtenbery filed

the suit individually and as next friend of Lambeck and Voigt’s son T.L. Faughtenbery later

filed a motion asking the trial court to appoint her as a guardian ad litem for T.L. In response,

Voigt filed a motion to dismiss. After convening a hearing, the trial court granted in part Voigt’s

motion to dismiss by dismissing the claims Faughtenbery sought to pursue on behalf of T.L. In

its order, the trial court also denied Faughtenbery’s motion to appoint her as a guardian ad litem.

Following that ruling, Faughtenbery filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to

direct the trial court to withdraw its order dismissing the claims brought on behalf of T.L. and

to appoint a guardian ad litem for T.L. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; Tex. R. App. P. 52.1.

Having reviewed the petition, the response, and the record, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a) (requiring court to deny petition if court determines that
relator is not entitled to relief sought); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36

(Tex. 2004) (explaining that to be entitled to mandamus relief relator must show both that trial

court abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate remedy by appeal).

                                             __________________________________________
                                             Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, Smith

Filed: March 10, 2023

                                                2