DocketNumber: 05-19-00473-CV
Filed Date: 6/10/2019
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/11/2019
Denied and Opinion Filed June 10, 2019 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00473-CV IN RE JASON ROGERS AND HAPPY DOG ENTERPRISES, P.A., Relators Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-14135 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Myers The underlying proceeding involves the alleged breach of a $3.78 million dollar commercial construction loan for the construction of a freestanding emergency room clinic and the associated guaranty agreements. Relator Dr. Jason Rogers (“Rogers”) signed guaranty agreements associated with the loan in his individual capacity and on behalf of relator Happy Dog Enterprises P.A. (“Happy Dog”). Rogers maintains, however, that the lender, Regions Bank, made false and misleading statements regarding the guaranties, engaged in unconscionable acts, and fraudulently induced him into executing the guaranties. Each of the guaranty agreements includes a jury trial waiver. After the borrower defaulted on the loans, Regions Bank sued Rogers, Happy Dog, and other purported guarantors of the loans. Regions Bank moved to strike Rogers’ and Happy Dog’s jury demands based on the jury waiver provisions in the guaranties. On March 31, 2019, the trial judge granted the motion and struck the jury demands. In this original proceeding, Rogers and Happy Dog seek a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate the March 31, 2019 order. The denial of trial by jury is reviewable by mandamus. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,148 S.W.3d 124
, 139 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy.Id. at 135–36.
Based on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown they are entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relators’ 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). /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE 190473F.P05 –2–