Deny and Opinion Filed March 22, 2022

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00140-CV IN RE CHUAN CHEN AND M. TAYARI GARRETT, Relators Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-17249 MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III We deny relators’ motion for rehearing. On our own motion, we withdraw our February 25, 2022 memorandum opinion and vacate the order of that date. This is now the opinion of the Court.

Before the Court are relators’ February 22, 2022 motion for emergency stay and petition for writ of mandamus, challenging as void for lack of jurisdiction the District Court’s February 16, 2022 order transferring the County Court case to District Court.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate appellate remedy. In re Page 1 of 2 Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Where the trial court's order is void, however, it is unnecessary for the relator to show the lack of other adequate remedies for a writ of mandamus to issue. Dikeman v. Snell, 490 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. 1973).

Based on our review of the petition and record, we conclude relators have failed to demonstrate that the District Court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

We deny relators’ motion for emergency stay as moot.

/Bill Pedersen, III// 220140f.p05 BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE

Page 2 of 2