Deny and Opinion Filed July 29, 2014
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00937-CV
IN RE HAIJUN ZHU, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 256th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-14-08308
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Lewis
Opinion by Justice Francis
Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus arguing the trial court abused its
discretion in failing to grant his motion to dismiss the de novo hearing request of real party in
interest.
Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has
clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential
Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839. Mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy that is available only in limited circumstances. CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925
S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840
(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). Mandamus is appropriate “only to correct a clear abuse of
discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by
law.” Id. “Mandamus review of incidental, interlocutory rulings by the trial courts unduly
interferes with trial court proceedings, distracts appellate court attention to issues that are
unimportant both to the ultimate disposition of the case at hand and to the uniform development
of the law, and adds unproductively to the expense and delay of civil litigation.” In re
Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d at 136. An appellate remedy is not inadequate merely because it
might involve more delay or cost than mandamus. In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 721
(Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).
Because relator has failed to establish his right to mandamus relief, we DENY the
petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
140937F.P05
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
–2–