In Re: Eric Rioja Appeal from 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

DENY and Opinion Filed August 5, 2022 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00767-CV IN RE ERIC RIOJA, Relator Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-17918 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Goldstein Relator Eric Rioja petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to (1) vacate a July 27, 2022 Order Denying Defendant Eric Rioja’s Motions to Vacate Appointment of Receiver, (2) vacate an October 21, 2021 Order Appointing Receiver, and (3) find void a June 24, 2021 Default Judgment. Also before this Court is Relator’s Emergency Motion to Stay Lower Court Proceedings Pending Writ of Mandamus (Emergency Motion) wherein relator asks this Court to (1) suspend enforcement of the June 24, 2021 Default Judgment, (2) suspend enforcement of the July 27, 2022 Order Denying Defendant Eric Rioja’s Motions to Vacate Appointment of Receiver, and (3) suspend all actions and powers granted to Receiver Robert Berleth in the October 21, 2021 Order Appointing Receiver. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition and record, we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.1 Accordingly, we deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We also deny relator’s Emergency Motion as moot. /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE 220767F.P05 1 Relator’s appendix and record contain a Declaration of Eric Rioja, which included an Exhibit A-1. Because our review of the record indicates that this declaration was not before the trial court when it made the rulings challenged in this original proceeding, we have not considered the declaration or its attachment when deciding relator’s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(2), 52.7(a); In re de Kallop, No. 14-20-00033CV, 2020 WL 1862017, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] April 14, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). –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.