Opinion
13-23-00472-CV
11-30-2023
IN RE PRESTON J. DUGAS III AND DUGAS & CIRCELLI, PLLC F/K/A PJD LAW FIRM, PLLC
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case."); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relators Preston J. Dugas III and Dugas & Circelli, PLLC f/k/a PJD Law Firm, PLLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which they seek to compel the trial court to vacate an October 19, 2023 order which enforced a rule 11 agreement, and "if necessary," or alternatively, vacate one portion of a December 3, 2020 order which required the interpleader of contested funds. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 11, 43.
Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135-36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus relief is also appropriate when a trial court issues an order "beyond its jurisdiction" because the order is void ab initio. In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by South Wind Public Adjusters Inc., and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.