Court Opinion

ID: 9780890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 06:08:11.565102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:24.855165
License: Public Domain

DISMISS IN PART AND DENY IN PART and Opinion Filed August 28, 2023

                                         In the
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 No. 05-23-00823-CV

  IN RE DENISE WILSON AND PETER KURZ RESIDE TOGETHER AT
     6012 ROSS AVENUE DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 75206, Relators

            Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3
                             Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-02370-C

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia
                             Opinion by Justice Carlyle
      Before the Court is relators’ August 22, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus,

which includes a request for emergency relief. The underlying proceeding is a

forcible-entry-and-detainer suit. Relators pray “that the trial court be held to the laws

and codes relating to its actions and that [supersedeas bond be] honored as in the

[trial court’s [o]riginal [judgment] and [n]unc [p]ro [t]unc [judgment] and that while

[a supersedeas bond] is in place, all attempts by trial court to issue writs be

suspended.”

      To the extent relators seek injunctive relief against the trial court, we dismiss

relators’ petition for want of jurisdiction. This Court has original jurisdiction to issue
a writ of injunction only as “necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” TEX.

GOV’T CODE § 22.221(a). Although there is a related appeal pending in this Court

(No. 05-23-00776-CV), the requested injunctive relief is not necessary to enforce

this Court’s jurisdiction in that pending appeal.

      To the extent relators seek mandamus relief against the trial court, entitlement

to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court clearly abused its

discretion and that relators lack an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins.

Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relators bear

the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to show they are entitled

to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In

re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); see also

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), (k)(1)(A), 52.7(a).

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

relators have failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we

deny relators’ petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). To the extent relators request any

other emergency relief, that request is denied.

                                               /Cory L. Carlyle//
230823f.p05                                    CORY L. CARLYLE
                                               JUSTICE

                                          –2–