Opinion
14-22-00189-CV
08-18-2022
IN RE CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY D/B/A BOBCAT COMPANY, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 269th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019-69076.
Panel consists of Christopher Chief Justice and Zimmerer and Wilson Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
On March 15, 2022, relator Clark Equipment Company d/b/a Bobcat Company filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion to stay discovery in this Court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Cory Don Sepolio, presiding judge of the 269th District Court of Harris County, to vacate the findings in the trial court's February 18, 2022 "net worth order" as to relator under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.0115.
"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only in limited circumstances to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal." In re Crow- Billingsley Air Park, Ltd., 98 S.W.3d 178, 179 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). "As a general rule, mandamus does not lie to correct incidental trial court rulings when there is a remedy by appeal." In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316, 320 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); see also Polaris Inves. Mgmt. Corp. v. Abascal, 892 S.W.2d 860, 862 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). "The writ will issue 'only in situations involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by other remedies.'" Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (internal quotations omitted). "The reluctance to issue extraordinary writs to correct incidental trial court rulings can be traced to a desire to prevent parties from attempting to use the writ as a substitute for an authorized appeal." Entergy, 142 S.W.3d at 320-21.
In this proceeding, the order at issue does not compel relator to produce net worth information; instead, we have a pretrial finding and an express denial of the real parties' request that the trial court issue such relief. Because net worth production is not required by relator at this time, we conclude that this Court is presented with an incidental pretrial ruling not reviewable by mandamus. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
"Mandamus relief is available when the trial court compels production beyond the permissible bounds of discovery." In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309, 322 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding)). Whether a trial court ordered net worth discovery within the scope of the civil practice and remedies code may be reviewed by mandamus. See In re Boone, 629 S.W.3d 372, 374 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2020, orig. proceeding) (op.) (mandamus review of net worth discovery order after trial court granted motion to obtain defendant's net worth); see also In re Daybreak Cmty. Servs. Tex., LLC, No. 10-19-00395-CV, 2020 WL 958457, at *1 (Tex. App.-Waco Feb. 26, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (trial court allowing discovery of net worth); In re Islamorada Fish Co. Tex., LLC, 319 S.W.3d 908, 910 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, orig. proceeding) (op. on reh'g) (trial court compelling production of net worth information).
As such, we hold relator has not established that it is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.
Additionally, all pending motions are denied as moot. Moreover, we lift our March 17, 2022 stay.