In Re John Roe v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Court of Appeals

Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-26-00268-CV

In re John Roe

Original Proceeding

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Relator John Roe has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he requests that we direct the trial court to vacate its order denying his motion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21d for leave to appear and testify at trial by videoconference. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Relator’s “Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief and Stay Pending Petition for Writ of Mandamus” is dismissed as moot.

We note that Relator highlights that, in addition to denying his request for leave to appear and testify by videoconference, the trial court stated at the hearing on his motion that his case would be dismissed if he did not appear for trial. The trial court’s written order states: “The Court further stated on the record that Plaintiff is required to personally appear for trial and that

Plaintiff’s failure to personally appear for trial will result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims.”

Relator stresses in his petition for writ of mandamus that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 7 provides that a party in a civil suit may prosecute or defend his rights “either in person or by an attorney of the court.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 7 (emphasis added). Relator argues that dismissal of his claims if he does not personally appear for trial, even though his counsel will personally appear and conduct the trial, disregards Rule 7.

We express no opinion on whether dismissal would be appropriate under such circumstances because the trial court has not yet acted. Relator would also have an adequate remedy by appeal. See, e.g., Forscan Corp. v. Touchy, 743 S.W.2d 722, 728 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, orig. proceeding).

MATT JOHNSON

Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 10, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Motion dismissed Petition denied OT06

In re Roe Page 2