In Re: Rex Performance Products, LLC. Appeal from 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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–

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.