in Re Justin Smith, 13-17-00602-CV

Background

Justin Smith filed an original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus to challenge a trial court’s September 28, 2017 order of attachment.
Smith argued the attachment order was void because it conflicted with Texas Supreme Court emergency orders issued after Hurricane Harvey.
The emergency orders directed Texas courts to consider disaster-caused delays as good cause to modify or suspend deadlines and procedures in any case.
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals requested and received a response from the real party in interest, Arnold & Itkin, LLP.
The petition asserts mandamus relief was needed to correct an alleged void order or clear abuse of discretion.
The Court reviewed the petition, response, and applicable law and concluded Smith did not establish entitlement to relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s attachment order is void because it conflicted with Texas Supreme Court emergency orders post-Harvey	The attachment order conflicts with emergency orders that authorize suspension/modification of deadlines and procedures due to disaster, so the order is void	The attachment order is valid; mandamus not warranted because relator failed to show entitlement to extraordinary relief	Denied mandamus; relator did not prove entitlement and the court refused to overturn the attachment order
Whether mandamus relief is appropriate to correct an alleged abuse of discretion	Smith contends abuse of discretion occurred by issuing the attachment despite emergency orders	Real party argues Smith failed to meet mandamus burden to show clear abuse and lack of adequate appellate remedy	Mandamus not granted; relator did not satisfy burden to show clear abuse of discretion and lack of adequate remedy by appeal
Whether an underlying order is void such that mandamus may be granted without showing lack of appellate remedy	Smith contends the order is void and thus mandamus is available without showing no appellate remedy	Real party disputes the order is void and contends mandamus is inappropriate	Court found relator did not establish the order was void and thus did not grant mandamus
Whether a stay previously imposed should remain	Smith sought to maintain a stay pending decision	Real party opposed continuing the stay	The court lifted the stay and denied the petition

Key Cases Cited

In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy)
In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus corrects clear abuse of discretion when no adequate appellate remedy)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator bears burden to prove entitlement to mandamus)
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus available when underlying order is void)
In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2000) (when order is void relator need not show lack of appellate remedy)
In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. 1998) (same principle regarding void orders and mandamus)