In Re: Clearcover Insurance Company v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 5, 2024
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00415-CV
IN RE CLEARCOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 493rd District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 493-01894-2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Garcia
Before the Court is relator’s April 5, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.
Relator challenges an April 1, 2024 order wherein the trial court denied relator’s
motion to quash trial setting and, alternatively, motion for continuance. Also before
the Court is relator’s April 5, 2024 motion for temporary relief wherein relator asks
this Court to stay the April 8, 2024 trial of the case and stay any other action or
discovery in the case pending further order of this Court.
Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court
clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a record sufficient
to show it is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)
(orig. proceeding). “Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must
follow the applicable procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation
to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” In re Phung
Van Tran, No. 05-14-01551-CV, 2014 WL 7234616, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec.
19, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).
Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure in numerous respects. For example, relator provided a certified copy of
the April 1, 2024 order being challenged, but none of the other documents that relator
included in its mandamus record or appendix is a sworn or certified copy as is
required by the rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a). The mandamus
petition reflects that there was a hearing on relator’s motion to quash, and relator’s
petition includes factual statements about what did and did not happen at that
hearing. But relator did not provide a reporter’s record of the hearing. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.3(g), (h). Relator also did not provide a statement that no testimony was
adduced in connection with the matter complained at that hearing. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 52.7(a)(2). Relator further makes representations about whether real party in
interest filed a response to relator’s plea in abatement, but it does not support those
statements with citations to competent evidence included in the appendix or record.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), (h).
–2–
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny
relator’s motion for temporary relief as moot.
/Dennise Garcia/
DENNISE GARCIA
JUSTICE
–3–