Summary
denying mandamus review of order denying relator's motion for partial summary judgment
Summary of this case from In re State Farm LloydsOpinion
NUMBER 13-14-00159-CV
03-18-2014
IN RE TCPSP CORPORATION
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Relator, TCPSP Corporation, filed a first amended petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on March 12, 2014, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in denying relator's motion for partial summary judgment.
Mandamus is appropriate when the relator demonstrates that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding).
A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The adequacy of an appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Because this balance depends heavily on circumstances, it must be guided by the analysis of principles rather than the application of simple rules that treat cases as categories. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We evaluate the benefits and detriments of mandamus review and consider whether mandamus will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. In this regard, mandamus is generally unavailable when a trial court denies summary judgment. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., 275 S.W.3d at 465-66; see In re United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 314 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief for the erroneous denial of a motion for summary judgment in extraordinary circumstances where the relator "endured one trial in a forum that lacked jurisdiction (and then a subsequent appeal to the court of appeals and [the supreme court]) and [was] facing a second trial on a claim that [the supreme court has] just held to be barred by limitations").
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to show itself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
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."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).