Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00160-CV
03-23-2016
IN RE JUAN MANUEL ORTIZ
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Motion for Emergency Relief.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum OpinionPer Curiam
Relator, Juan Manuel Ortiz, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a November 23, 2015 "Second Supplemental Interim Order[]" requiring him to pay reimbursement and attorney's fees to the real party in interest, Saray Ortiz, in the underlying divorce proceeding. By separate motions, relator seeks emergency temporary relief to stay the trial court proceedings and seeks to utilize the record in a pending interlocutory appeal. We deny relief.
"Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal." In re Frank Motor Co., 361 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding); see In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law. In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d at 888; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. In determining whether appeal is an adequate remedy, we consider whether the benefits outweigh the detriments of mandamus review. In re BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 244 S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d at 135-36. It is the relator's burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. This petition for writ of mandamus raises substantially the same issues as those previously addressed by this Court in a separate original proceeding. See In re Ortiz, No. 13-15-00602-CV, 2016 WL 747744, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam). Although the current petition for writ of mandamus contains additional argument and authority and seeks to incorporate additional record materials, the petition fails for some of the same reasons previously expressed by this Court. See id. Relator has neither shown that the trial court has abused its discretion nor that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, the motion for emergency relief and petition for writ of mandamus are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(A). Relator's amended motion to utilize the record in the interlocutory appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 23rd day of March, 2016.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).