Opinion
NUMBER 13-14-00660-CV
11-20-2014
IN RE BRIAN C. GUTIERREZ INDIVIDUALLY AND LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN GUTIERREZ, P.L.L.C.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Relators, Brian C. Gutierrez, individually, and Law Office of Brian Gutierrez, P.L.L.C., filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion to stay the trial court's orders for mediation and continuance in the above cause on November 17, 2014. Through this original proceeding, relators seek to compel the trial court to immediately rule on their motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, and further, to grant their motion to dismiss. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.
Mandamus is appropriate when the relator demonstrates that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding).
A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The adequacy of an appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Because this balance depends heavily on circumstances, it must be guided by the analysis of principles rather than the application of simple rules that treat cases as categories. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We evaluate the benefits and detriments of mandamus review and consider whether mandamus will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135-36. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion to stay are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 20th day of November, 2014.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).