In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-09-00189-CV
____________________
IN RE APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,
APOLLO MANAGEMENT, L.P., APOLLO MANAGEMENT IV, L.P.,
APOLLO MANAGEMENT V, L.P., APOLLO MANAGEMENT VI, L.P.,
APOLLO INVESTMENT FUND IV, L.P., APOLLO OVERSEAS PARTNERS IV, L.P., APOLLO ADVISORS IV, L.P., APOLLO INVESTMENT FUND V, L.P.,
APOLLO OVERSEAS PARTNERS V, L.P., APOLLO NETHERLANDS
PARTNERS V(A), L.P., APOLLO NETHERLANDS PARTNERS V(B), L.P.,
APOLLO GERMAN PARTNERS V GMBH & CO. KG, APOLLO ADVISORS V, L.P., APOLLO INVESTMENT FUND VI, L.P., APOLLO OVERSEAS PARTNERS VI, L.P., APOLLO OVERSEAS PARTNERS (DELAWARE) VI, L.P.,
APOLLO OVERSEAS PARTNERS (DELAWARE 892) VI, L.P.,
APOLLO OVERSEAS PARTNERS (GERMANY) VI, L.P.,
APOLLO ADVISORS VI, L.P., LEON BLACK and JOSHUA J. HARRIS
In this petition for writ of mandamus, the relators are third-party defendants in a business tort case who contend the trial court abused its discretion by denying the relators' motion for summary judgment and by failing to dismiss the contribution claims asserted against them by Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. Trial is set to commence June 8, 2009.
Mandamus relief is available only to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which the relators have no adequate remedy at law. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against its detriments. Id. at 136. We consider whether mandamus review of a significant ruling is "essential to preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss," to provide "helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive" on appeal, or to "spare private parties and the public the time and money utterly wasted enduring eventual reversal of improperly conducted proceedings." Id. "[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).
The relators have not shown that the benefits of a mandamus review in this case outweigh the detriments of pre-trial review of the issues raised in the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on May 11, 2009
Opinion Delivered May 15, 2009
Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.