DENIED and Opinion Filed June 7, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00464-CV IN RE ASHLEY NICOLE HORNE, Relator Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-03505 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Smith In her April 18, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relator sought relief from the trial court’s denial of her demand for jury trial and certain aspects of the trial court’s temporary orders. In a memorandum opinion and order dated April 24, 2024, the Court denied relator’s requested relief. On April 25, 2024, relator filed a Motion for Rehearing and Leave to Amend Petition and an amended mandamus petition.

We deny the motion for rehearing, grant the motion for leave to amend petition, withdraw our opinion and vacate our order of April 24, 2024, and issue this new memorandum opinion and order of this date in their place.

On original submission, the Court denied relief because relator failed to provide a certification that satisfied the requirements of rule 52.3(j), and we noted that relator had omitted a statement of the case and did not support her statement of facts with citations to competent evidence included in the appendix or record.

Relator moved for rehearing and filed an amended petition that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and seeks the same relief as the original petition.

Because relator had removed the technical grounds on which the Court’s memorandum opinion rested, the Court requested a response to the motion for rehearing and the amended petition. Real party in interest filed a response, and relator filed a reply. We now consider the merits of relator’s amended 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). After reviewing relator’s amended petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny relator’s amended petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We also lift the stay issued by this Court’s May 17, 2024 Order.

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH 240464F.P05 JUSTICE

–2–