In Re Meg Brewer Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-20-00193-CV __________________ IN RE MEG BREWER __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding County Court at Law No. 2 of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19-31621 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 14, 2020, Meg Brewer, Relator, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion for temporary relief. Relator is the tenant appealing in an eviction suit scheduled for trial on August 17, 2020. Relator contends the trial court clearly abused its discretion by failing to grant her request to continue the proceedings to another date because she needs additional discovery and is a vulnerable person who cannot safely attend the currently scheduled trial due to the threat of the virus, Covid-19. The Relator alleged that while the trial court offered to conduct the trial via an alternative means, Zoom, she does not personally own a smart phone and she refuses to participate by telephone. Relator has not shown that she complied with the procedures required to establish she is a vulnerable person, nor did she establish that her attorneys cannot assist her in attending the trial by Zoom or by telephone. Nor has the Relator shown the trial court refused to follow its procedures that concern the trial court’s conducting trials during the periods affected by the orders of the Texas Supreme Court, which address Covid-19. Relator has failed to establish a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief are DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on August 14, 2020 Opinion Delivered August 14, 2020 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

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.