in Re Jeffery Wayne Blackburn

Opinion

Opinion issued April 21, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

concerning medical expenses.2 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 18.001. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not demonstrated that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (holding “an appellate remedy is not inadequate merely because it may involve more expense or delay than obtaining an extraordinary writ”); see also In re Flores, No. 01-19-00484-CV, 2020 WL 425297, *2–3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 28, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying relators’ petition for writ of mandamus challenging trial court’s exclusion of counteraffidavits offered pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 18.001).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a), (d). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, and Hightower.

2 The underlying case is Belinda Lamonto and Linda Bendickson v. Jeffery Wayne Blackburn, Cause No. 2017-80112, in the 113th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Rabeea Sultan Collier presiding.

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-19-00627-CV ——————————— IN RE JEFFERY WAYNE BLACKBURN, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Jeffery Wayne Blackburn,1 has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging two orders entered by the trial court striking certain counteraffidavits 1 The spelling of relator’s name varies throughout the record. Our style of the case is in accord with the trial court’s orders at issue in this original proceeding. See Owens v. Handyside, 478 S.W3d 172, 175, n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (clarifying style of case); see also Strobel v. Marlow, 341 S.W.3d 470, 471 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.).