In re Craft & Design Appeal from 55th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued November 24, 2020 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00775-CV ——————————— IN RE CRAFT & DESIGN, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Craft & Design, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the trial court’s October 27, 2020 order denying its motion for summary judgment.1 We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 1 The underlying case is Craft & Design v. 3i Contracting LLC, Cause No. 2019-40584, in the 55th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Latosha Lewis Payne presiding. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available in limited circumstances. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show both that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004). Relator asserts in its petition for writ of mandamus that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motion for summary judgment. However, “mandamus is generally unavailable when a trial court denies summary judgment, no matter how meritorious the motion.” See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 314 (Tex. 2010); In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 465 (Tex. 2008). Because relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, mandamus relief is not appropriate. See In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d at 465–66 (denial of summary judgment does not deprive relator of appellate remedy as “trying a case in which summary judgment would have been appropriate does not mean the case will have to be tried twice”). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hightower, and Countiss 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.
