Opinion
No. 14-04-00318-CV.
Memorandum Opinion filed May 13, 2004.
Original Proceeding Writ of Mandamus.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices FROST and GUZMAN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 28, 2004, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See TEX. GOV'T. CODE ANN. § 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2004); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52. In its petition, relator seeks to have this Court direct the trial court to grant its motion to compel arbitration. Relator also requests that we stay all trial court action pending resolution of this petition.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when a trial court clearly abuses its discretion, either in resolving factual issues or in determining legal principles, and there is no other adequate remedy by appeal. In re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d 179, 180 (Tex. 2003) Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). In determining whether there has been a clear abuse of discretion justifying mandamus relief, the reviewing court must consider whether the trial court's ruling was arbitrary, unreasonable, or reached without reference to any guiding rules or principles, amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of law. Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917-18 (Tex. 1985). When alleging that a trial court abused its discretion in its resolution of factual issues, the party must show the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision. Id. at 918. As to the determination of legal principles, an abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
We find relator has failed to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay.