Opinion issued November 17, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-20-00665-CV
———————————
IN RE VOLT ELECTRICITY PROVIDER, LP, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Volt Electricity Provider, LP, has filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus challenging the trial court’s order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and
its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction which asserted that the
claims of real party in interest, Dalal Said, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Public Utility Commission (the “PUC”) pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory
Act.1
We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.2
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available in limited
circumstances. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992).
“Mandamus relief is available only if the trial court clearly abused its discretion and
the party has no adequate remedy by appeal.” In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d
602, 605 (Tex. 2000). Generally, mandamus relief is not available to correct
incidental trial court rulings where there is a remedy by appeal, including the
granting or denial of a plea to the jurisdiction. See In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d
316, 320 (Tex. 2004). However, Texas law recognizes an exception to this general
rule, allowing mandamus review of a trial court’s order denying a plea to the
jurisdiction where a party has failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the
PUC because “permitting a trial to go forward would interfere with the important
legislatively mandated function and purpose of the PUC.” Id. at 321; see also In re
Tex.-N.M. Power Co., No. 10-19-00166-CV, 2019 WL 3822274, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Waco Aug. 14, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
1
See TEX. UTIL. CODE § 11.001 et seq.
2
The underlying case is Dalal Said, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volt Electricity Provider, LP, Cause No. 2020-13088, in the 215th
District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Elaine Palmer presiding.
2
While this exception applies here, the burden to establish an abuse of
discretion by the trial court remains with relator, who must show that the trial court
has reached a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and
prejudicial error of law by its failure to analyze or apply the law correctly. See In re
Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883, 888 (Tex. 2010). We conclude that
relator has not demonstrated that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in
denying relator’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.8(a), (d). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Adams.
3