Opinion
13-23-00401-CV
02-05-2024
IN RE DEBORAH RHEMAN
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Before Contreras Chief Justice and Silva and Peña, Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case."); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relator Deborah Rheman filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which she seeks to compel the trial court to vacate an order extending post-judgment deadlines under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(4), (5) (delineating the procedure to follow when a party fails to receive timely notice of a judgment or other appealable order). Relator contends that the trial court's order is void.
Relator also filed a motion for leave to file her petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss this motion as moot because leave is not required to file an original proceeding in an intermediate appellate court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52 & cmt.; In re Fields, 619 S.W.3d 394, 394 (Tex. App.-Waco 2021, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see also In re Rodriguez, No. 13-21-00003-CV, 2021 WL 79289, at *2 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg Jan. 8, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135-36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus relief is also appropriate when a trial court issues an order "beyond its jurisdiction" because the order is void ab initio. In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by real party in interest Thomas Rheman, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.