In Re: Peter Swart Appeal from 256th 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. 05-18-01370-CV IN RE PETER SWART, Relator Original Proceeding from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-24538 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Brown In this original proceeding, relator seeks review of the denial of his motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. 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 court abuses its discretion if its decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or without reference to guiding principles. In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670, 679 (Tex. 2007). An adequate remedy by appeal does not exist when a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is erroneously denied. Id. at 676. As such, mandamus relief is available from the denial of a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. In re Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC, 459 S.W.3d 565, 569 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding). 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). /Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE 181370F.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.
