In Re Brandy Skidmore v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 10, 2025
• Docket: 09-25-00434-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00434-CV __________________

IN RE BRANDY SKIDMORE

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24-12-19838 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Brandy Skidmore filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion

for temporary relief. Skidmore seeks a writ compelling the trial court to vacate an

order granting Real Party in Interest Town Creek Storage, LLC’s motion to strike

Skidmore’s jury demand and have a jury trial on the issue of attorney’s fees.

Background

The suit in the trial court concerns three storage unit rental agreements

between Skidmore and Town Creek and a dispute that arose after property stored in

the units sustained damage from an incursion of water during a storm. The

1 agreements contain a release clause, an indemnity provision, and a jury waiver. In

July 2025, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary

judgment and entered a take-nothing judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims against the

defendants. In August 2025, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for

summary judgment, which contends the contracts are unconscionable and

unenforceable except for the terms identifying the space rented and the monthly

rental fee.

On September 30, 2025, Town Creek filed a motion to strike the jury demand

on the ground that the contracts provided that any action arising from the agreement

or from use of the rented storage space “shall be tried to the court without a jury.”

In response, Skidmore argued Town Creek’s motion to strike was untimely and

Skidmore did not sign the rental agreements with knowledge that they contained a

jury waiver. In an affidavit attached to her response, Skidmore stated, “It was made

clear to me that in order to be able to rent the storage units that I needed, I would

have to just sign it. So I really did not read it. I just signed it with an electronic

signature from my phone.” In a supplemental response, Skidmore argued the waiver

was not made knowingly or voluntarily because the jury waiver was not

conspicuous.

2 On October 19, 2025, the trial court granted Town Creek’s motion to strike,

struck Skidmore’s jury demand, and ordered, “The amount of attorney’s fees will be

tried to the Court on November 13, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.”

Mandamus Standard

We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by

the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See 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, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “A trial

court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and

unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 839 (internal quotations omitted). A trial court also abuses its discretion

if it fails to correctly analyze or apply the law, because a trial court has no discretion

in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See Prudential,

148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits

of mandamus review against the detriments, considering whether extending

mandamus relief will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from

impairment or loss. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig.

proceeding). “The operative word, ‘adequate,’ has no comprehensive definition; it

is simply a proxy for the careful balance of jurisprudential considerations that

3 determine when appellate courts will use original mandamus proceedings to review

the actions of lower courts.” Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136.

Issues

Skidmore contends the trial court abused its discretion because bold print does

not meet the conspicuity test and Town Creek failed to diligently pursue enforcement

of the contractual jury waiver. She argues an appeal is an inadequate remedy

considering the time and money utterly wasted on an improperly conducted bench

trial.

Generally, the denial of a trial by jury is reviewable by mandamus. Id. at 139.

In this case, however, the trial court has disposed of Skidmore’s claims against Town

Creek by summary judgment and the scheduled evidentiary hearing appears to be

limited to Town Creek’s claim that it is entitled to be indemnified for the attorney’s

fees it incurred defending the lawsuit. The issues presented to and resolved by the

trial court in the partial summary judgment are not before us in this mandamus

proceeding. The lawsuit includes additional parties who are not parties to the

mandamus proceeding. If Skidmore must wait until appeal following rendition of a

final judgment to challenge the trial court’s order striking her jury demand, in the

event she prevails on appeal only the attorney’s fee hearing will have to be repeated,

and different evidence might be presented in a jury trial on remand.

4 Conclusion

We conclude any benefits of mandamus are outweighed by the detriments. Id.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion for

temporary relief.1 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a), 2.10.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 7, 2025 Opinion Delivered November 10, 2025

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1 We express no opinion here regarding the potential merit of any issues that might arise in an eventual appeal from a final judgment. 5