in Re Suncoast A/C & Refrigeration and Larry J. Fitting, 13-16-00554-CV

Relators Suncoast A/C & Refrigeration and Larry J. Fitting sought a writ of mandamus to overturn a trial court order granting motions to strike their designation of a responsible third party.
Real parties in interest included multiple individuals and the Estate of Geradine Hellerstedt, who moved to strike the responsible third party designation.
The trial began October 10, 2016, with evidence scheduled to open October 13, 2016; relators also asked for temporary relief to stay trial.
Relators argued the trial court abused its discretion by striking the responsible third party designation and that mandamus was needed because appeal would be inadequate.
The Court of Appeals reviewed whether relators met the mandamus standards: clear abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy.
The court determined relators failed to show entitlement to mandamus relief and denied both the petition and the temporary stay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking the responsible third party designation	Striking the designation was arbitrary and unreasonable, warranting mandamus relief	Striking was proper under governing law and within the trial court's discretion	Relators did not show clear abuse of discretion; mandamus denied
Whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy (adequacy of appeal)	An appeal would be inadequate given circumstances and the need for immediate review	Appeal provides an adequate remedy; mandamus not justified	Relators failed to establish inadequacy of appellate remedy; mandamus denied
Whether temporary relief (stay of trial) should issue pending mandamus	Trial should be stayed to prevent irreparable harm while mandamus considered	No stay warranted because mandamus not shown to be appropriate	Motion for temporary relief denied
Whether relators met the heavy burden for extraordinary relief	Relators bore burden to prove both elements for mandamus	Real parties contended relators did not carry the required burden	Court found relators did not meet their burden and denied relief

In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus is extraordinary and relator must prove criteria)
In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus proper to correct clear abuse when no adequate appellate remedy exists)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator bears burden to prove mandamus requirements)
Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (definition of abuse of discretion)
In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. 2014) (balancing benefits of mandamus review against detriments)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (consideration of adequacy of appellate remedy in mandamus context)