In Re: Tava Romaine v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 24, 2024
Docket05-24-00471-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Tava Romaine v. the State of Texas (In Re: Tava Romaine v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Tava Romaine v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 24, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00471-CV

IN RE TAVA ROMAINE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-02428-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Smith Before the Court is relator’s April 22, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator challenges the trial court’s December 13, 2023 Order on Defendant Plan B

Dsgn’s LLC’s Amended Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary

Judgment. Relator generally contends the trial court granted real party in interest’s

amended summary-judgment motion without providing relator with notice and an

opportunity to be heard in violation of her due-process rights.

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

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

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

proceeding). “Due to the extraordinary nature of the remedy, the right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for action by the respondent, and the

respondent’s erroneous refusal to act.” In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506, 510 (Tex.

2017) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

Based on the petition and record before us, we conclude relator has failed to

show that she first requested from the trial court the relief she seeks or that making

such a request would be futile. In re Heppner, No. 05-22-00554-CV, 2022 WL

2093031, *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 10, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). In

any event, we conclude relator has failed to demonstrate she lacks an adequate

remedy by appeal.

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a).

/Craig Smith/ 240471F.P05 CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE

–2–

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
In re Coppola
535 S.W.3d 506 (Texas Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Tava Romaine v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tava-romaine-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.