In Re: Dr. Adam Benham, Benham Property Owners Association, LLC, and Benham Orthodontics & Assocdiates, PA v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 17, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-00726-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed June 17, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00726-CV

IN RE DR. ADAM BENHAM, BENHAM PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, LLC, AND BENHAM ORTHODONTICS & ASSOCIATES, PA, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 471st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471-02575-2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Molberg Before the Court are relators’ June 17, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus

and emergency motion for stay of temporary restraining order. Relators challenge

the trial court’s June 13, 2024 Order Granting the Five Point Parties’ Amended

Application for Modified Temporary Restraining Order.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relators lack an adequate appellate remedy. In

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

proceeding). The order at issue was signed by Judge Ray Wheless sitting by assignment. But relators name the Honorable Andrea Bouressa as the respondent.

Thus, the petition does not identify the correct respondent as required by the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a), (d)(2); In re Read, No.

05-22-01247-CV, 2022 WL 17828925, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 21, 2022,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Even if this defect did not exist, however, after reviewing the petition and

record before us, we conclude that relators failed to demonstrate entitlement to

mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a). We also deny relators’ emergency motion as moot.

/Ken Molberg/ KEN MOLBERG 240726F.P05 JUSTICE

–2–