In Re Venus Ford of Cudahy, Inc., Ford Motor Company, and Ford International Capital LLC f/k/a Ford Investment Enterprises Corp., v. --Appeal from 215th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November 15, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-11-00904-CV ____________ IN RE VENUS FORD OF CUDAHY, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY and FORD INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LLC f/k/a FORD INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES CORP., Relators ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 215th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008-71227 MEMORANDUM OPINION On October 14, 2011, relators, Venus Ford of Cudahy, Inc., Ford Motor Company, and Ford International Capital LLC f/k/a Ford Investment Enterprises Corp., filed a petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221. Relators ask this court to order the respondent, the Honorable Steven E. Kirkland, presiding judge of the 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas, to set aside his October 5, 2011, discovery order, entered in trial court cause number 2008-71227, styled Dealer Computer Services, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company and Ford Investment Enterprise Corporation a/k/a FIECO. Relators claim that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring two privileged documents to be produced. Relators also filed a motion for a temporary stay of the trial court s discovery order, which this court granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party requesting mandamus relief has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 36 (Tex. 2004). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law, or if it clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005). Relators have not established that they are entitled to extraordinary relief. See Boring & Tunneling Co. of Am., Inc. v. Salazar, 782 S.W.2d 284, 288 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, orig. proceeding) (if conflicting evidence is presented on whether the attorney-client privilege applies, the trial court s decision is conclusive on mandamus review); see also In re ExxonMobil Corp., 97 S.W.3d 353, 363 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding) (finding no abuse of discretion where trial court resolved factual disputes and relator did not establish that trial court could reasonably have reached only a decision in its favor). Accordingly, we deny relator s petition for writ of mandamus. We lift the stay granted in our October 18, 2011, order. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher. 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.