Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Majority and Dissenting Memorandum Opinions filed February 25, 2021.

In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-20-00767-CV

IN RE CESAR LENAY URBINA, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS County Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1100739 DISSENTING MEMORAMDUM OPINION The majority denies the petition for writ of mandamus for failure to comply with Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 52.3(j) requires the person filing the petition to certify that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j). This error is easily corrected and in other cases this court has notified the petitioner of the error and allowed time for the deficiency to be cured.

If the deficiency was not corrected, the petition has been dismissed, rather than denied, because the merits of the petition were never considered. The court should treat similarly situated parties the same way and give relator notice that this original proceeding will be dismissed unless the procedural deficiencies are remedied. See In re Kholaif, No. 14-20-00731-CV & 14-20-00732-CV, 2020 WL 7013339 (Nov. 25, 2020, order), dism’d, 2020 WL 7633850 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 22, 2020, no pet. h.).

Because the majority in this case denies the petition outright, without notice and an opportunity to cure, I respectfully dissent.

/s/ Frances Bourliot Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell and Bourliot. (Wise, J., majority) (Bourliot, J., dissenting).