NUMBER 13-11-00018-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JENNIFER FLORES-LAMB

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Vela

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion[1]

By “Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” Jennifer Flores-Lamb seeks to compel the trial court[2] to set aside an “Order on Petitioner’s Request for Rule 13 Sanctions for Filing Groundless Pleadings” rendered on October 14, 2010, and further seeks to compel the trial court to acknowledge the “relevance” of a witness’s medical history. 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that issues only if the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.  In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding).  The heavy burden of establishing an abuse of discretion and an inadequate appellate remedy is on the party resisting discovery.  In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding).  A trial court commits a clear abuse of discretion when its action is “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.”  Id. (quoting CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1996)).  It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992); In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198-99 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3.  

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not shown herself entitled to the relief sought.  Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

                                                                                                PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

13th day of January, 2011.