DENIED and Opinion Filed July 18, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00685-CV IN RE MOTOR CARRIER #1476454 JASON STANFORD D/B/A ROLLIN’ SMOKE AT THE ATTACHE, Relator Original Proceeding from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-18441 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Molberg In its June 7, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relator challenges the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in numerous respects. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(d), 52.3(g), 52.3(h), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a), 52.7(c)(2).

Even if these defects did not exist, we would deny the petition. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). “[M]andamus is generally unavailable when a trial court denies summary judgment, no matter how meritorious the motion.” In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 465 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

/Ken Molberg/ KEN MOLBERG 240685F.P05 JUSTICE

–2–