In Re: Cynthia Banigan v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 24, 2024
• Docket: 05-23-01196-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Denied and Opinion Filed April 24, 2024

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-01196-CV

IN RE CYNTHIA BANIGAN, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 468th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 468-50281-2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness This mandamus proceeding arises out of a contested divorce action in which

Husband (real party in interest) moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an

arbitration provision within the parties’ post-marital partition and exchange

agreement. Wife (relator) opposed arbitration, contending she did not sign the

partition agreement voluntarily and it is also unconscionable. In this mandamus

proceeding, Wife argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying her (1) a

reasonable opportunity to conduct pre-arbitration discovery on these defenses and

(2) a jury trial to resolve contested fact issues regarding the same. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In

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

proceeding). Having considered the petition, response, reply, sur-reply,1 and record

before us, we conclude Wife has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus

relief.

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

52.8(a). We also lift the stay issued by this Court’s December 1, 2023 Order.

/Robbie Partida-Kipness// 231196f.p05 ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE

1 Husband filed an unopposed motion to file the sur-reply. We grant the motion. –2–