Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 29, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00435-CV

____________

IN RE LISA P.H. LIN, PAUL C.K. LIN, AND EUROPAMERICA ORIGINALS, INC., Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On May 3, 2004, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court.  See Tex. Gov=t. Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when a trial court clearly abuses its discretion, either in resolving factual issues or in determining legal principles, and there is no other adequate remedy by appeal.  In re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d 179, 180 (Tex. 2003) Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839‑40 (Tex. 1992).  In determining whether there has been a clear abuse of discretion justifying mandamus relief, the reviewing court must consider whether the trial court=s ruling was arbitrary, unreasonable, or reached without reference to any guiding rules or principles, amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of law.  Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917-18 (Tex. 1985).  When alleging that a trial court abused its discretion in its resolution of factual issues, the party must show the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision.  Id. at 918.  As to the determination of legal principles, an abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly.  Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

We find relators have failed to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion.  Accordingly, we deny relators= petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 29, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Seymore (Edelman, J., would set for argument).