Opinion
05-24-01096-CV
12-20-2024
IN RE KUTLAY MESCIOGLU, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-24-00182
Before Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CORY L. CARLYLE, JUSTICE
Relator filed a motion for rehearing of our September 27, 2024 memorandum opinion and order denying relief. We deny the motion for rehearing. On our own motion, we withdraw our opinion and vacate our order of September 27, 2024, and issue this new memorandum opinion and order denying relief in their stead. This is now the opinion of the Court.
In his September 18, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relator asked this Court to compel the trial court to vacate an August 6, 2024 memorandum ruling whereby the district judge affirmed two associate judge reports dated June 28, 2024, in the underlying divorce proceeding. On original submission, the Court denied relief because relator's petition did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52 in numerous respects. We also struck relator's petition, including its attached appendix, because it contained unredacted sensitive data in violation of rule 9.9.
On October 14, 2024, relator moved for rehearing and filed an amended petition for writ of mandamus and appendix. Relator also filed a motion to submit a hearing exhibit to the Court on a flash drive, and we granted that motion. Relator's October 14, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus and appendix, including the hearing exhibit submitted on a flash drive, removed the technical grounds upon which the Court's memorandum opinion rested. We thus consider the merits of relator's petition.
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). 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 relator's petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
Because we vacated our September 27, 2024 order, we also again strike relator's original September 18, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, including its attached appendix.
For sake of clarity, we do not strike relator's October 14, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus or its attached appendix.