in Re: Christi Stembridge
05-15-00672-CV
| Tex. App. | May 28, 2015Background
- Relator Christi Stembridge filed a petition for writ of mandamus on May 27, 2015 asking the Court of Appeals to direct the trial court to explain why it set aside a jury verdict and granted a new trial and to stay the scheduled new trial.
- The trial court had entered an order on June 6, 2014 granting the real party in interest’s motion for new trial.
- The new trial was set for June 8, 2015; Stembridge filed the mandamus petition less than two weeks before that date.
- Stembridge offered no explanation for the nearly one-year delay between the trial court’s June 2014 order and her May 2015 mandamus filing, nor for waiting until the eve of the new trial.
- The Court of Appeals treated the delay as unexplained and relied on equitable principles governing mandamus (diligence required), concluding the delay barred relief.
- The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus and did not issue a stay of the new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator is entitled to mandamus relief directing the trial court to explain why it set aside the jury verdict and granted a new trial | Stembridge sought an order compelling explanation and a stay of the new trial | Real party relied on the trial court’s discretionary power to grant a new trial; opposed mandamus | Denied: relator’s unexplained delay in seeking mandamus (nearly one year, and filed days before trial) barred extraordinary relief |
| Whether a stay of the new trial should issue pending mandamus consideration | Stembridge requested a stay pending resolution | Real party opposed stay; urged that mandamus was not warranted | Denied: stay not granted because mandamus relief itself was denied due to delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus corrects clear abuse of discretion when no adequate appellate remedy exists)
- Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993) (mandamus may be denied for unjustified delay in seeking relief)
- In re Pendragon Transp., LLC, 423 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (mandamus issuance governed by equitable principles; delay can forfeit relief)
- In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. 2009) (equitable doctrine that relief aids the diligent; delay can waive mandamus)
- Int’l Awards, Inc. v. Medina, 900 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995) (denial of mandamus where petition filed on eve of trial after months of delay)
- Bailey v. Baker, 696 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985) (mandamus denied after nearly four-month unexplained delay and filing two weeks before trial)