eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2019-05

in Re D. Brent Moore ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                                  NUMBER 13-19-00184-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE D. BRENT MOORE
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1
Relator D. Brent Moore filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on
April 15, 2019.      Through this original proceeding, Moore seeks to vacate an order
disqualifying his counsel of record, John D. Bell and the law firm of Wood, Boykin &
Wolter, P.C.
1   See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in
any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
so.”);
    id. R. 47.4 
    (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that the trial court
committed a clear abuse of discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal.
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
    .
Appeal is an inadequate remedy when a trial court abuses its discretion in the
disqualification of counsel. In re Guar. Ins. Servs., Inc.,
    343 S.W.3d 130
    , 132 (Tex. 2011)
(orig. proceeding); In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P.,
    164 S.W.3d 379
    , 383 (Tex. 2005)
(orig. proceeding); In re Sanders,
    153 S.W.3d 54
    , 56 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per
curiam); NCNB Tex. Nat'l Bank v. Coker,
    765 S.W.2d 398
    , 400 (Tex. 1989) (orig.
proceeding). Consequently, the only issue we must consider on mandamus is whether
the trial court abused its discretion by disqualifying counsel. See In re Nitla S.A. de C.V.,
    92 S.W.3d 419
    , 423 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response to the petition filed by Padre Isles Property Owners Association, Inc., and
the applicable law, is of the opinion that Moore has not met his burden to obtain
2
mandamus relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case and we
DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.4, 52.8, 52.10(b).
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Delivered and filed the
1st day of May, 2019.
3