in Re: Kip Dixon, 05-15-00242-CV

Relator Kip Dixon filed an original mandamus proceeding asking this Court to order the elected trial judge to withdraw an order granting a new trial after a bench trial that had been conducted by an assigned judge.
The trial at issue lasted less than a full day; the elected judge later signed the order granting the new trial.
Relator sought merits-based mandamus review of the trial court’s order granting new trial.
The Court of Appeals considered whether to extend mandamus relief to allow merits review of orders granting new trial in circumstances like this one.
The court declined to extend merits-based mandamus review to orders granting new trial following bench trials and denied the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether merits-based mandamus is available to review an order granting new trial after a bench trial	Mandamus is appropriate to compel withdrawal of the new-trial order	Merits-based mandamus should not be extended to new-trial orders after bench trials	Court declined to extend merits-based mandamus review and denied relief
Whether the elected judge’s signing of the new-trial order (after an assigned-judge trial) changes the availability of mandamus	Signature by the elected judge makes the order subject to review	Signature does not change the balance favoring prompt retrial and against interlocutory mandamus	Court held the elected judge’s signature does not alter the analysis; mandamus still not available

In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009) (discussing trial court discretion to grant new trials and balance against interlocutory mandamus)
In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2013) (noting transparency concerns over setting aside jury verdicts are less applicable to bench-trial new-trial orders)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (explaining mandamus can interfere with trial proceedings and cause delay and expense)