In Re: Autumn Ranch, LLC v. the State of Texas

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 3, 2024

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00362-CV

IN RE AUTUMN RANCH, LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 439th Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1-23-0212

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel Before the Court is relator’s March 26, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator challenges a December 1, 2023 Order Granting Motion to Transfer Venue

wherein the trial court granted real party in interest’s motion to transfer venue,

severed relator’s claims against real party in interest into trial court Cause No. 1-23-

1844, and transferred Cause No. 1-23-1844 to the 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas

County, Texas. Relator asks this Court to compel the trial court to vacate the

December 1, 2023 order.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a 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 contends that it brought this original proceeding pursuant to

§ 15.0642 of the civil practice and remedies code. That statute permits a party to

“apply for a writ of mandamus with an appellate court to enforce the mandatory

venue provisions of this chapter.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 15.0642.

Any application for a writ of mandamus must be filed before the later of (1) the

ninetieth day before the date the trial starts or (2) the tenth day after the date the

party receives notice of the trial setting. Id. When § 15.0642 applies, it is not

necessary for a relator to demonstrate it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re

Tarrant Cnty, 345 S.W.3d 784, 786 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, orig. proceeding).

After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude that

relator failed to demonstrate the applicability of § 15.0642 to this original

proceeding. Even if it did apply, we conclude that relator failed to demonstrate

entitlement to the requested mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

Also before the Court is relator’s April 3, 2024 emergency motion for

temporary relief. We deny the emergency motion as moot.

/Emily Miskel/ 240362f.p05 EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE

–2–