Opinion
NUMBER 13-19-00189-CV
04-17-2019
IN RE OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC. (F/K/A AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.); AND DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., ASSET-BACKED PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-R8
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes
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."); see also id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relators, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; Homeward Residential, Inc. (f/k/a American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.); and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-R8, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on April 16, 2019. In this original proceeding, relators assert that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) denying their no-evidence motion for summary judgment, (2) granting the motion for partial summary judgment filed by MARCC Real Estate Investment LLC, and (3) granting the motion for partial summary judgment filed by Consuelo Jones and Gabriela Jones. By emergency motion, relators seek to stay the underlying proceedings, including the trial of this matter, which is scheduled to commence on April 22, 2019.
To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order is a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide, 494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. In deciding whether the benefits of mandamus outweigh the detriments, we weigh the public and private interests involved, and we look to the facts in each case to determine the adequacy of an appeal. In re United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 313 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding); In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 469 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136-37.
"[M]andamus is generally unavailable when a trial court denies summary judgment, no matter how meritorious the motion." In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d at 465-66; see In re United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d at 314. This is so because "trying a case in which summary judgment would have been appropriate does not mean the case will have to be tried twice." In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d at 465-66. Only extraordinary circumstances will justify granting mandamus relief when a trial court erroneously denies a motion for summary judgment. In re United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d at 314; see, e.g., In re Ooida Risk Retention Relators Grp., Inc., 475 S.W.3d 905, 913 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus review of the denial of an insurer's motion for summary judgment on a claimant's breach of contract claim); In re ConocoPhillips Co., 405 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus review of the denial of a partial motion for summary judgment in a class action).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response to the emergency motion filed by real parties in interest Consuelo Jones and Gabriela Jones, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion to stay. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), 52.10(b).
GREGORY T. PERKES
Justice Delivered and filed the 17th day of April, 2019.