In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00182-CV
__________________
IN RE CURTIS ADAIR D/B/A CK TRUCKING
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
258th District Court of San Jacinto County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CV14,958
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Curtis Adair d/b/a CK Trucking filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus and a motion for temporary relief in a wrongful death case. He complains
that the trial court abused its discretion by granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude
Evidence Regarding Plaintiff’s Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Tests and Motion
to Exclude Defendant’s Toxicology Expert. Adair argues the trial court’s pretrial
ruling hampers his presentation of a contributory negligence defense. In a response
to Adair’s motion for a stay of the trial, which is scheduled to begin July 19, 2021,
the Real Parties in Interest, Troy Chapla and Kelly Maningas, Individually and as
1
Representatives of the Estate of Marley Chapla, argue that Adair unreasonably
delayed seeking mandamus relief from the trial court’s order of January 29, 2021,
which Adair denied in his reply.
To prevail on a petition for mandamus, Adair must show that the trial court
abused its discretion and he has no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The adequacy of
an appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus
review against the detriments.” In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex.
2008) (orig. proceeding). “In evaluating benefits and detriments, we consider
whether mandamus will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from
impairment or loss.” Id. “These considerations implicate both public and private
interests.” Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136. We consider whether an irreversible waste
of judicial and public resources would be required if mandamus does not issue. In re
Masonite Corp., 997 S.W.2d 194, 198 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding).
Based on the record before us, we conclude Adair has not shown he lacks an
adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of
mandamus and motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
2
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on July 14, 2021
Opinion Delivered July 15, 2021
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
3