In Re: Samer Chammaa v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 9, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-00527-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed May 9, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00527-CV

IN RE SAMER CHAMMAA, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 468th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 468-55514-2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Reichek The case underlying this original proceeding is a divorce action involving a

minor child. In his May 5, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relator challenges

the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody

Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Alternatively, to the extent the trial court has

subject-matter jurisdiction, relator contends that the trial court abused its discretion

by allegedly not allowing him to submit information relevant to whether the trial

court should decline to exercise jurisdiction under section 152.207 of the Texas

Family Code, by failing to abate the case due to real party in interest’s alleged failure to meet the residency requirements to maintain a divorce action, and by ordering

relator to appear in person at a temporary orders hearing.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude

that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

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

52.8(a). In conjunction with his petition, relator also filed an emergency motion for

temporary relief to stay all trial court proceedings. We deny the emergency motion

as moot.

Finally, relator’s petition and separately filed combined appendix and record

contain unredacted sensitive information in violation of rule 9.9, specifically

including a minor’s name and birth date. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. Accordingly, we

strike relator’s petition and separately filed combined appendix and record.

/Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE 240527F.P05

–2–