in Re: Emeka Aludogbu

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 24, 2019
• Docket: 05-19-00078-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENY; and Opinion Filed January 24, 2019.

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00078-CV

IN RE EMEKA ALUDOGBU AND RESTORATIVE HEALTHCARE, LLC, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-00112

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Brown In this original proceeding, relators seek a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to

dissolve the January 4, 2019 temporary restraining order and vacate the January 18, 2019 orders

extending the temporary restraining order, continuing the temporary injunction hearing, and

permitting expedited discovery. Relators also seek a stay of relator Emeka Aludogbu’s deposition,

which is scheduled for January 25, 2019.

To obtain mandamus relief, relators must show that the trial court clearly abused its

discretion and that relators have no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,

148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A party has no remedy by appeal when

a temporary restraining order is granted that is not in compliance with the rules, and a writ of

mandamus is appropriate in such situations. In re Office of Attorney Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695, 697–

98 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d 201, 207

(Tex. 2002); In re S. Foods Group, LLC, No. 05-13-01348-CV, 2013 WL 5888255, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 31, 2013, orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we conclude

relators have not shown they are entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relators’

petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the

court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

/Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE

180078F.P05

–2–