DENY; and Opinion Filed December 4, 2018.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-01319-CV
IN RE REX PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, LLC., Relator
Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-05538
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Fillmore
In this original proceeding, relator complains that the trial court denied relator’s renewed
motion to enlarge the discovery period. To be entitled to 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) (orig. proceeding).
“A writ of mandamus will issue only if the trial court reaches a decision so arbitrary and
unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law and the relator has no adequate
remedy by appeal.” In re Shipman, 540 S.W.3d 562, 565–66 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding)
(quoting In re State Farm Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d 595, 604 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding)). Appellate
courts may not substitute their judgment for the trial court's determination of factual matters
committed to the trial court's discretion. Id. “But with regard to questions of law and mixed
questions of law and fact, a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying
the law to the facts, even when the law is unsettled.” In re State Farm Lloyds, 520 S.W.3d at 604
(internal quotations omitted).
Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown a clear abuse of
discretion. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief
sought).
/Robert M. Fillmore/
ROBERT M. FILLMORE
JUSTICE
181319F.P05
–2–