in Re Gerald Mora
13-21-00276-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 30, 2021Background
- Pro se relator Gerald Mora filed a mandamus petition on August 27, 2021, arising from a civil suit he brought against Christopher Dorsey (claims: breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud).
- Mora sought an order compelling Dorsey to respond to Mora’s discovery requests and an order compelling the trial court to "honor [Mora’s] motions."
- Mandamus standard: extraordinary, discretionary relief requiring proof that (1) the trial court abused its discretion and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal.
- Mora’s petition failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52: he did not provide an appendix or a record supporting his request.
- This Court concluded it lacked mandamus jurisdiction over Dorsey and that Mora failed to show either trial-court abuse of discretion or lack of an adequate appellate remedy.
- Result: the petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction as to Dorsey and denied as to relief against the trial court. The opinion was delivered August 30, 2021.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court may issue mandamus against Dorsey (a non-judge party) | Mora sought mandamus relief against Dorsey to compel discovery responses | Dorsey is not subject to this Court’s mandamus power; mandamus is to control judicial officers | Court dismissed mandamus as to Dorsey for lack of mandamus jurisdiction |
| Whether relator established trial court abused its discretion | Mora argued the trial court failed to honor his motions and to compel discovery | Trial court actions did not meet Mora’s showing for extraordinary relief; facts/record not established | Court denied relief against the trial court for failure to show abuse of discretion |
| Whether Mora lacked an adequate appellate remedy | Mora contended appeal would not provide adequate relief | Appellate remedy exists absent a clear showing otherwise; Mora did not demonstrate inadequacy | Court held Mora failed to establish lack of adequate remedy on appeal |
| Whether Mora complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52 (record/appendix) | Mora filed a pro se petition but provided no appendix/record | Failure to comply with rule undermines entitlement to mandamus | Court noted noncompliance and treated it as part of relator’s failure to meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. 2021) (mandamus is extraordinary and discretionary)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus requires showing abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy)
- In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2021) (relator must prove both mandamus requirements)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards governing issuance of mandamus)
- In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (relator bears burden of proof in original proceedings)
- In re Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 532 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017) (appellate courts’ original mandamus jurisdiction discussed)
- In re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012) (scope of appellate court’s original jurisdiction in mandamus matters)