in Re Kevin M. Bolster ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                  NUMBER 13-18-00134-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    IN RE KEVIN M. BOLSTER
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras1
    By petition for writ of mandamus, Kevin M. Bolster contends that the trial court
    abused its discretion by (1) granting a motion for new trial after its plenary jurisdiction had
    expired; (2) continuing to preside over the original lawsuit; and (3) entering a void order.
    Relator has also filed an emergency motion to stay the underlying trial court proceedings.
    See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). We deny relief.
    1   See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in
    any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
    so.”); 
    id. R. 47.4
    (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
    Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 
    492 S.W.3d 300
    ,
    302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a
    clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus
    Santa Rosa Health Sys., 
    492 S.W.3d 276
    , 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator
    bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery 
    Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302
    ; Walker v. Packer, 
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
    An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or
    is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence.           In re
    Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 
    494 S.W.3d 708
    , 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford
    Motor Co. v. Garcia, 
    363 S.W.3d 573
    , 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of
    an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the
    detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 
    450 S.W.3d 524
    , 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In
    re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
    Mandamus relief is also proper when the trial court issues a void order. See In re
    Nationwide Ins. 
    Co., 494 S.W.3d at 712
    ; In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 
    35 S.W.3d 602
    , 605 (Tex.
    2000) (orig. proceeding); 
    Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840
    . When a trial court has entered a
    void order, the relator need not show that it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal, and
    mandamus relief is appropriate. In re Sw. Bell Tel. 
    Co., 35 S.W.3d at 60
    . It is well-settled
    that mandamus relief is appropriate when a trial court issues an order after its plenary
    power has expired because the order is void. In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 
    250 S.W.3d 66
    , 68–69 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Sw. Bell Tel. 
    Co., 35 S.W.3d at 60
    5; In re
    CAS Cos., 
    422 S.W.3d 871
    , 874 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, orig. proceeding).
    2
    The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
    the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself
    entitled to the relief sought. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 21(f)(6) (“If a document is untimely due
    to a technical failure or a system outage, the filing party may seek appropriate relief from
    the court. If the missed deadline is one imposed by these rules, the filing party must be
    given a reasonable extension of time to complete the filing.”); Tex. Dep’t of Aging &
    Disability Servs. v. Mersch, 
    418 S.W.3d 736
    , 742 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013,
    no pet.) (“The electronic filing and service rules should not become a trap for the unwary
    when no harm is done.”); see also Aziz v. Waris, No. 01-15-00175-CV, 
    2015 WL 5076295
    ,
    at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2015, no pet.) (per curiam mem. op.); Ex
    parte Agostadero, No. 14–13–00975–CR, 
    2014 WL 1622772
    , at *1–2 (Tex. App.—
    Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 22, 2014, pet. ref d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
    Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion to
    stay. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
    DORI CONTRERAS
    JUSTICE
    Delivered and filed this
    8th day of March, 2018.
    3