DENIED and Opinion Filed November 21, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-01373-CV IN RE DANIEL KEARNS, Relator Original Proceeding from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-06557 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Smith Before the Court are relator’s November 20, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief. In his petition, relator challenges as void various trial-court actions, arguing that all trial-court proceedings have been automatically stayed pursuant to section 17.505 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. In his emergency motion, relator asks us to stay all trial-court proceedings pending our action on the petition.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and thus does not meet the requirements for consideration of mandamus relief. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), 52.3(h), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(h).

Additionally and alternatively, and even if relator’s record contained properly certified or sworn documents as required by the rules, 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). After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, for each of the above independent and alternative reasons, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We also deny relator’s emergency motion for temporary relief as moot.

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH 241373F.P05 JUSTICE

–2–