From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Mauldin

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jun 20, 2024
No. 05-24-00590-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 20, 2024)

Opinion

05-24-00590-CV 05-24-00591-CV

06-20-2024

IN RE MARY G. MAULDIN, Relator


Original Proceedings from the 429th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 429-05261-2021 and 429-01200-2024

Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AMANDA L. REICHEK, JUSTICE

Before the Court are relator's May 16, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus and May 17, 2024 motion for temporary relief. In her petition, relator challenges as void for want of jurisdiction or otherwise as an abuse of discretion certain trial court actions occurring after the trial court's order under rule 202 authorizing the pre-suit deposition of relator as a potential or anticipated defendant. In her motion, relator seeks a stay of all trial court proceedings, including a June 24, 2024 trial setting, pending our action on the petition.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the 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).

After reviewing relator's petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

In conjunction with her petition, relator also filed a motion for temporary relief to stay all trial court proceedings. We deny the emergency motion as moot.

Finally, the appendix attached to relator's petition contains unredacted sensitive information in violation of rule 9.9, specifically including a bank account number or other financial account number. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9. Accordingly, we strike relator's petition, including its attached appendix.


Summaries of

In re Mauldin

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jun 20, 2024
No. 05-24-00590-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 20, 2024)
Case details for

In re Mauldin

Case Details

Full title:IN RE MARY G. MAULDIN, Relator

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Jun 20, 2024

Citations

No. 05-24-00590-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 20, 2024)