In re Jasmine Jarbis Appeal from 80th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued September 26, 2023 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00678-CV ——————————— IN RE JASMINE JARBIS, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Jasmine Jarbis, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s April 19, 2023 and August 10, 2023 orders.1 The record reflects that relator is not a party to the underlying action, and thus, does not have standing to bring this mandamus proceeding. See In re Gore Family 1 The underlying case is James Allen, Robert L. Thomas, and Allan Haye v. PCF Properties in Texas, LLC v. Elizabeth Thomas, James M. Andersen, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Cause No. 2020-35780, in the 80th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jeralynn Manor presiding. 1 Ltd. P’ship, No. 14-18-00761-CV, 2018 WL 4354701, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 13, 2018, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.) (“Standing is an element of an appellate court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over a petition for writ of mandamus.”); In re Guardianship of Jones, No. 05-15-01510-CV, 2015 WL 9304276, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 22, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“A petitioner for mandamus relief must have standing to bring suit just as any other litigant. A relator has standing to pursue mandamus relief if the relator has a justiciable interest in the controversy.”); In re Baker, 404 S.W.3d 575, 577–78, 582 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, orig. proceeding) (considering sua sponte whether relator had standing to bring original proceeding). Relator’s mandamus petition also does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(a) (“Service on a party represented by counsel must be made on that party’s lead counsel.”), 52.3. We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams, and Justices 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.