In Re: Louise King Appeal from 254th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DENY; and Opinion Filed December 11, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-01373-CV IN RE LOUISE KING, Relator Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-08-4995 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Boatright Before the Court is real party in interest Paul Bhella’s motion to correct or revise memorandum opinion. We grant the motion, withdraw our opinion dated November 21, 2018, and vacate the order of that date. This is now the Court’s opinion. In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its order denying relator’s motion to transfer the case and, alternatively, to vacate the order compelling the case to arbitration and vacate the arbitrator’s pretrial orders. 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). It is generally inappropriate to grant mandamus review of orders compelling arbitration, and parties who believe they are being erroneously compelled to arbitrate when they have not agreed to arbitration have an adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment. In re Adelphi Group, Ltd., No. 05-16-01060-CV, 2016 WL 5266655, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Gulf Expl., LLC, 289 S.W.3d 836, 842 & n. 33 (Tex. 2009)). Because the parties have an adequate remedy by appeal, relator is not entitled to mandamus relief. We must deny a petition for mandamus when the relator is not entitled to relief. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. /Jason Boatright/ JASON BOATRIGHT JUSTICE 181373F.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.