in Re: Tunad Enterprises, Inc. ( 2018 )

DENY; and Opinion Filed September 12, 2018.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00980-CV
IN RE TUNAD ENTERPRISES, INC., Relator
Original Proceeding from the 417th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 417-00618-2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright
Opinion by Justice Boatright
The underlying proceeding is a suit to recover a security deposit brought by the real party
in interest Martin Palma d/b/a Liz Palma (“Palma”) against his former landlord, relator Tunad
Enterprises, Inc. In this original proceeding, relator complains of the trial court’s August 30, 2018
written order denying relator’s request for attorney’s fees incurred in a prior mandamus proceeding
in this Court and of the trial court’s failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law
following that order. Relator also complains of the trial court’s verbal rulings on August 30, 2018
compelling relator to respond to discovery in aid of judgment, ordering $10,000 as sanctions
against relator, and requiring payment of the monetary sanctions before trial despite relator’s
purported inability to pay. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the
trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re
Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record
before us, we conclude relator has not shown it is entitled to the relief requested.
Relator has an adequate remedy on appeal regarding the denial of fees for the prior
mandamus proceeding. See In re Cousins, 551 S.W.3d 913, 920 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2018, orig.
proceeding) (ordinary appeal of the order denying motion for fees provided adequate remedy
where relator could pursue his claims, “eventual outcome had not been pre-determined by trial
court's ruling, and there was no danger that an appellate court would be unable to cure any error
through ordinary appeal or that error could not be made part of the appellate record”).
As for the verbal rulings, the trial court has not signed a written sanctions order or a written
discovery order, and relator has not provided a reporter’s record of the hearing at which the verbal
rulings were made. Under these circumstances, the verbal rulings are not subject to mandamus
review and may not be stayed. See In re Cokinos, No. 05-16-01331-CV, 2016 WL 7163968, at *1
(Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus where
relator did not file a written order or record of a verbal order) (internal citations omitted); see also
In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 812 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding) (verbal ruling
is subject to mandamus review only if it is clear, specific, and enforceable).
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a)
(the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).
/Jason Boatright/
JASON BOATRIGHT
JUSTICE
180980F.P05
–2–