in Re Carla Arisano and Brock Brinkman ( 2014 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14-00109-CV
IN RE CARLA ARISANO AND BROCK BRINKMAN
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carla Arisano and Brock Brinkman have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
to compel the judge of the trial court of the County Court at Law of Ellis County to
withdraw its judgments denying a motion to transfer, motion to dismiss, and modifying
a protective order. The trial court has entered orders granting the motion to modify the
protective order of Arisano and denying the motion to modify the protective order of
Brinkman.1
Mandamus relief is available when the trial court abuses its discretion and there
is no adequate remedy at law, such as by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d
1Arisano and Brinkman filed a joint motion; however, the trial court entered separate judgments for
Arisano and Brinkman within the same cause number.
124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004); In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W.3d 298, 301 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding)).
Because the trial court has entered final judgments on Arisano and Brinkman's motion,
relators have an adequate remedy at law. A petition for a writ of mandamus is not a
substitute for an appeal. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840-41; In re Bernson, 254 S.W.3d 594,
595 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding).
After the entry of the judgments denying Arisano and Brinkman's motion, there
are no pending issues or parties before the trial court at this time. We find that the
judgments of which Arisano and Brinkman complain are final for purposes of appeal.
Therefore, relief by mandamus is inappropriate because the parties have an adequate
remedy by appeal. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed May 1, 2014
[OT06]
In re Arisano and Brinkman Page 2