Court Opinion

ID: 9539199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 11:09:24.012372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:36.338537
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued August 3, 2023

                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                           First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                               NO. 01-22-00341-CV
                            ———————————
    IN RE JOSEPH F. RADLER III, THE DICK LAW FIRM, PLLC, Relators

            Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Relators Joseph F. Radler III, and the Dick Law Firm, PLLC1 filed a petition

for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s February 7, 2022 order imposing

sanctions against relator Joseph Radler for $5,125.63 in attorney’s fees, and

ordering certain payments due before trial. On August 31, 2022, real parties filed a

letter attaching a take-nothing judgment entered by the trial court on August 22,

1
       The underlying case is Robert Rojas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
       Company, cause number 1143116, pending in the County Civil Court at Law No.
       3 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable LaShawn Williams presiding.
2022. On January 10, 2023, real parties in interest filed a motion to dismiss this

petition for writ of mandamus as moot because the trial court signed a final

judgment on August 22, 2022. Relators filed a response to the motion to dismiss

opposing dismissal because they would like this Court’s “thoughtfully considered

ruling in this mandamus for use in the prosecution of their appeal.”

      To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show two requirements:

(1) that the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) no adequate remedy by appeal.

See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004). An

order of sanctions, including an award of attorney’s fees, are subject to review on

appeal from a final judgment. See Susman Godfrey, L.L.P. v. Marshall, 832

S.W.2d 105, 108 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no writ). Although no final judgment

had been entered at the time relators filed this petition, there is a final, appealable

judgment now and relators may seek review of the sanctions order in the appeal

from the final judgment. Because relators have an adequate remedy by appeal,

they are unable to show entitlement to mandamus relief.

      We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. Any pending motions are

dismissed as moot.

                                   PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.

                                          2