Opinion
05-22-00543-CV
06-07-2022
IN RE MICHAEL E. ROBINSON AND THE ROBINSON LAW FIRM, Relators
Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-14300
Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
Before the Court is relators' June 6, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus. In the petition, relators complain about the trial court's failure to rule on their pending motion to withdraw as counsel.
Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). As the party seeking relief, relators have the burden of providing the Court with a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to establishing their right to mandamus relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (requiring relator to submit a record containing certified or sworn copies). Because the documents included in the record are not certified by a trial court clerk or adequately sworn copies, we conclude relators have not met this burden.
Further, the petition does not include an adequate Rule 52.3(j) certification. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 758 (applying Rule 52.3(j) strictly).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.