In Re: Russell Finkelberg and Karen Gaugg v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 3, 2023
• Docket: 05-23-00142-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed March 3, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00142-CV

IN RE RUSSELL FINKELBERG AND KAREN GAUGG, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-21-02871-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Smith

Before the Court is relators’ February 16, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus.

We deny the petition.

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). A relator need not show that it does not have an adequate remedy by

appeal when the complained-of order is void. In re Banigan, 05-22-01084-CV, 2023

WL 166206, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 12, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). After reviewing relators’ petition and the record before us, we conclude that relators

have failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE 230142F.P05

–2–