eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2015-05

in Re George Simo ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                                  NUMBER 13-15-00238-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE GEORGE SIMO
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, George Simo, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on
May 22, 2015. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial court
to: (1) vacate a September 11, 2014 order excluding evidence; (2) vacate an April 22,
2015 order granting partial summary judgment; and (3) grant relator’s plea to the
jurisdiction.
1 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).
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion for which the relator has
no adequate remedy at law. In re Frank Motor Co.,
    361 S.W.3d 628
    , 630 (Tex. 2012)
(orig. proceeding); In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., LLC,
    328 S.W.3d 883
    , 887 (Tex.
2010) (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 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus
relief. In re CSX Corp.,
    124 S.W.3d 149
    , 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding). This burden
is a heavy one. Id.; Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig,
    876 S.W.2d 304
    , 305 (Tex. 1994)
(orig. proceeding).
A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and
unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to
correctly analyze or apply the law. In re Olshan Found. Repair Co.,
    LLC, 328 S.W.3d at 888
    ;
    Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840
    . The second requirement for mandamus relief, that the
relator has no adequate remedy by appeal, “has no comprehensive definition” and is
decided on a case-by-case basis. See In re Ford Motor Co.,
    165 S.W.3d 315
    , 317 (Tex.
2005) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
    Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136
    ).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain
mandamus relief.      See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
    Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135
    –36.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
26th day of May, 2015.
2