Opinion
No. 05-24-00020-CV
02-29-2024
IN RE CG SEARCY, LLC, Relator
Abigail Gregory, Aubrey Meachum Connatser, Aubrey M. Connatser, PLLC, Dallas, William Cook, Jeffrey E. Cook, Adam R. Barela, Sullivan & Cook LLC, Irving, Rebecca Shapiro, Flannigan Law Firm, PLLC, Frisco, Alissa Castro, Jere Hayes Hight, Connatser Family Law, Dallas, Coyt Randal "Randy" Johnston, Chad Baruch, Johnston Tobey Baruch, P.C., Dallas, Lynne A. Corsi, The Law Office of Lynne A. Corsi, Dallas, for Real party in interest Buxton Searcy, Virginia Elizabeth. Douglas W. Alexander, Amy Warr, Anna Meredith Baker, Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP, Austin, Kerry F. Schonwald, Alan S. Loewinsohn, McKool Smith, P.C., Dallas, for Relator.
Original Proceeding from the 301st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-06221
Abigail Gregory, Aubrey Meachum Connatser, Aubrey M. Connatser, PLLC, Dallas, William Cook, Jeffrey E. Cook, Adam R. Barela, Sullivan & Cook LLC, Irving, Rebecca Shapiro, Flannigan Law Firm, PLLC, Frisco, Alissa Castro, Jere Hayes Hight, Connatser Family Law, Dallas, Coyt Randal "Randy" Johnston, Chad Baruch, Johnston Tobey Baruch, P.C., Dallas, Lynne A. Corsi, The Law Office of Lynne A. Corsi, Dallas, for Real party in interest Buxton Searcy, Virginia Elizabeth.
Douglas W. Alexander, Amy Warr, Anna Meredith Baker, Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP, Austin, Kerry F. Schonwald, Alan S. Loewinsohn, McKool Smith, P.C., Dallas, for Relator.
Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Opinion by Justice Kennedy
Before the Court is relator’s January 10, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus. Relator challenges certain rulings contained within an associate judge’s report dated December 15, 2023 (the Report).
The documents in this original proceeding have been filed under seal. Thus, we include information contained in the filings in this case only to the extent necessary.
[1, 2] Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus is proper if a trial court issues an order beyond its jurisdiction; if the order is void and thus an abuse of discretion, a relator need not show it lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
[3, 4] A relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a record sufficient to show it is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rule 52.7 requires a relator to file "a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence." Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(2). "Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record." In re Phung Van Tran, No. 05-14-01551-CV, 2014 WL 7234616, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 19, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).
[5] Here, the record reflects that the associate judge held evidentiary healings on the motion at issue on October 31, 2023, and December 13, 2023. Relator included transcripts of those healings in its mandamus record. But relator omitted all exhibits that were offered into evidence at both hearings. Although a real party in interest filed a supplemental record, her supplement did not cure this defect. Thus, to the extent relator raises any evidentiary arguments to establish a clear abuse of discretion, we conclude relator failed to meet its burden to provide a record sufficient to demonstrate its entitlement to mandamus relief. See In re Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, No. 05-23-01263-CV, 2024 WL 260760, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief in part because relator omitted exhibits filed with the motions at issue from the record). Moreover, we must presume that the omitted exhibits support the rulings at issue. See id.; see also In re Lowery, No. 05-14-01401-CV, 2014 WL 5862199, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 13, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Minter Elec. Co., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 540, 544 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, orig. proceeding).
Additionally, and assuming without deciding that the rulings at issue in the Report are subject to mandamus review, based on our review of relator’s petition, a real party in interest’s response, relator’s reply, the letter briefs on file, and the record before us (including the real party’s supplemental record), we conclude that relator failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.
A real party in interest filed a response to relator’s mandamus petition without the Court requesting a response.
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
We also lift the stay issued by this Court’s January 31, 2024 Order.