NUMBER 13-17-00610-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE BRUCE OLSON
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Relator, Bruce Olson, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for
emergency relief in the above cause on October 27, 2017. Through this original
proceeding, relator seeks an order directing the trial court to grant his motion for summary
judgment and grant his request for a temporary restraining order. Through his motion for
emergency relief, relator seeks that this Court stay proceedings until this writ of
mandamus be disposed.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300,
302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a
clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus
Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator
bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492
S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and
unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting
evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine
the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review
against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig.
proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding).
Mandamus relief is generally unavailable when a trial court denies summary
judgment, no matter how meritorious the motion. In re United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 307
S.W.3d 299, 314 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not shown that extraordinary
circumstances justify granting mandamus relief on grounds that the trial court erroneously
denied their motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., id. (granting mandamus relief
under extraordinary circumstances when relator endured one trial in a forum that lacked
jurisdiction, and then a subsequent appeal to the court of appeals and the Texas Supreme
Court, and faced a second trial on a claim that was barred by limitations).
As a general rule, temporary restraining orders are not appealable, but if the gravity
of the interests and issues involved are sufficiently serious, a trial court’s ruling on a
temporary restraining order can be challenged by mandamus because there is no remedy
2
on appeal. See, e.g., In re Office of the Atty. Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695, 697–98 (granting
mandamus relief directing the trial court to withdraw temporary orders because the Texas
Attorney General presented evidence that Texas could lose federal funding if he was
forced to comply with the orders pending the outcome of proceedings to amend the
underlying child support orders). Here, Olson has not met his burden to show this Court
why the interests and issues involved in this case are sufficiently serious to warrant a
mandamus challenge to the trial court’s order denying his application for a temporary
restraining order.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the
relief sought. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for
emergency stay. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
GINA M. BENAVIDES
Justice
Delivered and filed
this 27th day of October, 2017.
3