in Re: The Town of Flower Mound, Texas ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • DENY; and Opinion Filed July 8, 2019.
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-19-00460-CV
    IN RE THE TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS, Relator
    Original Proceeding from the 116th Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-17756
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell
    Opinion by Justice Molberg
    This proceeding involves a question of dominant jurisdiction between a first-filed suit in
    Denton County and the underlying proceeding. The trial court granted a plea in abatement in favor
    of the Denton County suit. In this original proceeding, The Town of Flower Mound, Texas seeks
    a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its abatement order and reinstate the case.
    To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate that the trial court clearly
    abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co.
    of Am., 
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its
    discretion if “it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and
    prejudicial error of law” or if it clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re Cerberus
    Capital Mgmt. L.P., 
    164 S.W.3d 379
    , 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting
    Walker v. Packer, 
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 839–40 (Tex. 1992)). “[A] relator need only establish a trial
    court’s abuse of discretion to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief with regard to a plea in
    abatement in a dominant-jurisdiction case.” In re J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 
    492 S.W.3d 287
    , 299–
    300 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not
    shown it is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of
    mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines
    relator is not entitled to the relief sought).
    /Ken Molberg/
    KEN MOLBERG
    JUSTICE
    190460F.P05
    –2–