In Re Staci Sue Semrad v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 09-26-00001-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00001-CV __________________

IN RE STACI SUE SEMRAD

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25-08-12510 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Staci Sue Semrad filed a petition for (1) a writ of mandamus

compelling the trial court to vacate parts of a final Order Granting Defendant’s

Dispositive Motions and Imposing Sanctions, dated October 19, 2025, (2) a writ of

prohibition prohibiting the trial court from interfering with this Court’s jurisdiction

over Appeal Number 09-25-00378-CV, and (3) a writ of injunction enjoining Real

Party in Interest Tavi Lynnee Sellers and her attorneys from attempting to enforce

sanctions and penalties contained in the trial court’s Order dated October 19, 2025.

1 We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by

the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). We

determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of

mandamus review against the detriments, considering whether extending mandamus

relief will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or

loss. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding).

“The operative word, ‘adequate[,]’ has no comprehensive definition; it is simply a

proxy for the careful balance of jurisprudential considerations that determine when

appellate courts will use original mandamus proceedings to review the actions of

lower courts.” Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136.

Relator complains in part that the trial court ordered that the sanctions

imposed in the final judgment cannot be superseded. A party may seek review of a

determination whether to permit suspension of enforcement of a judgment by filing

a motion for appellate review in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(a)(4).

Having reviewed the petition and record, we conclude that Relator has an

adequate remedy by appeal regarding the issues presented in the petition.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writs of mandamus, prohibition, and

injunction. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

2 PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 2, 2026 Opinion Delivered January 5, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.