In Re Robert Ruthstrom v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 8, 2024
• Docket: 06-24-00065-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00065-CV

IN RE ROBERT RUTHSTROM

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Ruthstrom has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel

the judge of the 202nd Judicial District Court of Bowie County, Texas, to reverse its ruling

denying Ruthstrom’s motion to set aside a settlement agreement. Because Ruthstrom has not

shown that he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief, we deny his petition.

In 2019, Robert Ruthstrom sued Andrea Cotton for injuries resulting from a car accident.

On March 15, 2024, the parties reached a settlement agreement. As a result, Ruthstrom asked

the trial court to remove the case from the March 19 jury trial docket. Even so, in April,

Ruthstrom filed a petition to set aside the settlement and asked for a jury trial. On August 20,

2024, the trial court denied Ruthstrom’s motion to set the settlement agreement aside.

“Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited

circumstances.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The

writ will issue ‘only in situations involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances

that may be addressed by other remedies.’” Id. (quoting Holloway v. Fifth Ct. of Appeals, 767

S.W.2d 680, 684 (Tex. 1989) (orig. proceeding)).

Mandamus relief is available “only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear

abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and

adequate remedy at law.” In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008,

orig. proceeding) (citing Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam) (orig.

proceeding)). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts unreasonably, arbitrarily, or without

reference to any guiding principles. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839.

2 The party seeking mandamus relief has the burden to provide the Court with a sufficient

record to support its requested relief. Id. at 837. “[T]he relator[s] ‘must establish that the trial

court could reasonably have reached only one decision,’ and that its finding to the contrary is

‘arbitrary and unreasonable.’” In re Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 778, 780 (Tex. 2006)

(per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840).

We have examined and fully considered the petition for a writ of mandamus, the

mandamus record, the response of the real party in interest, and the applicable law. After doing

so, we find that Ruthstrom has not met his burden to obtain the extraordinary remedy of

mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

Jeff Rambin Justice

Date Submitted: October 7, 2024 Date Decided: October 8, 2024