in Re: Emeka Aludogbu

DENY; and Opinion Filed January 24, 2019.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00078-CV
IN RE EMEKA ALUDOGBU AND RESTORATIVE HEALTHCARE, LLC, Relators
Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-00112
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Brown
In this original proceeding, relators seek a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to
dissolve the January 4, 2019 temporary restraining order and vacate the January 18, 2019 orders
extending the temporary restraining order, continuing the temporary injunction hearing, and
permitting expedited discovery. Relators also seek a stay of relator Emeka Aludogbu’s deposition,
which is scheduled for January 25, 2019.
To obtain mandamus relief, relators must show that the trial court clearly abused its
discretion and that relators have no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A party has no remedy by appeal when
a temporary restraining order is granted that is not in compliance with the rules, and a writ of
mandamus is appropriate in such situations. In re Office of Attorney Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695, 697–
98 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d 201, 207
(Tex. 2002); In re S. Foods Group, LLC, No. 05-13-01348-CV, 2013 WL 5888255, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Oct. 31, 2013, orig. proceeding). 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).
/Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN
JUSTICE
180078F.P05
–2–