in Re Craft & Design

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 24, 2020
Docket01-20-00775-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Craft & Design (in Re Craft & Design) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re Craft & Design, (Tex. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Opinion issued November 24, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00775-CV ——————————— IN RE CRAFT & DESIGN, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Craft & Design, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,

challenging the trial court’s October 27, 2020 order denying its motion for summary

judgment.1

We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

1 The underlying case is Craft & Design v. 3i Contracting LLC, Cause No. 2019-40584, in the 55th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Latosha Lewis Payne presiding. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available in limited

circumstances. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). To be

entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show both that the trial court abused its

discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins.

Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004).

Relator asserts in its petition for writ of mandamus that the trial court abused

its discretion by denying its motion for summary judgment. However, “mandamus

is generally unavailable when a trial court denies summary judgment, no matter how

meritorious the motion.” See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 314 (Tex.

2010); In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 465 (Tex. 2008). Because

relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, mandamus relief is not appropriate. See

In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d at 465–66 (denial of summary judgment

does not deprive relator of appellate remedy as “trying a case in which summary

judgment would have been appropriate does not mean the case will have to be tried

twice”).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. All pending

motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hightower, and Countiss

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
In Re United Services Automobile Ass'n
307 S.W.3d 299 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
In Re McAllen Medical Center, Inc.
275 S.W.3d 458 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Craft & Design, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-craft-design-texapp-2020.