in Re: Peter Swart ( 2018 )

DENY; and Opinion Filed December 4, 2018.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-01370-CV
IN RE PETER SWART, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 256th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-24538
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright
Opinion by Justice Brown
In this original proceeding, relator seeks review of the denial of his motion to dismiss for
forum non conveniens. 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). A court abuses its
discretion if its decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or without reference to guiding principles. In
re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670, 679 (Tex. 2007). An adequate remedy by appeal does not
exist when a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is erroneously denied. Id. at 676. As
such, mandamus relief is available from the denial of a motion to dismiss based on forum non
conveniens. In re Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC, 459 S.W.3d 565, 569 (Tex. 2015) (orig.
proceeding).
Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown a clear abuse of
discretion. 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).
/Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN
JUSTICE
181370F.P05
–2–