in Re Anissa M. Brooks ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                       In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    _________________
    NO. 09-18-00444-CV
    _________________
    IN RE ANISSA M. BROOKS
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Original Proceeding
    172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. E-201,261
    ________________________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Anissa M. Brooks petitioned for mandamus relief from an order denying a
    motion to transfer venue. The trial court signed an order denying Brooks’s motion
    to transfer to the county of her residence on May 4, 2018. On June 5, 2018, the trial
    court severed into a separate action the claim of the plaintiff, Kevin Hudspeth,
    against Allstate Fire and Casualty Company. In a motion filed on July 5, 2018,
    Brooks asked the trial court to reconsider its venue ruling in light of the severance
    of Hudspeth’s cause of action against his insurer. The trial court denied her motion
    1
    on August 27, 2018. On September 28, 2018, the trial court denied Brooks’s motion
    requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law. Brooks filed her mandamus
    petition on December 3, 2018.
    Brooks argues that Hudspeth chose an improper venue to bring claims against
    her because she is not a resident of Jefferson County, the accident giving rise to the
    litigation did not occur in Jefferson County, the severed defendant does not have a
    principal office in Jefferson County, and the improperly joined breach-of-contract
    claim against Hudspeth’s insurer has been severed from this suit.
    A party may appeal a venue ruling following a trial on the merits. See Tex.
    Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.064(b) (West 2017). After examining and
    considering the petition and appendix, the mandamus response, and the applicable
    law, we conclude that the relator has not shown that she lacks an adequate remedy
    by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 135–36 (Tex.
    2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P.
    52.8(a).
    PETITION DENIED.
    PER CURIAM
    Submitted on December 14, 2018
    Opinion Delivered December 20, 2018
    Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-18-00444-CV

Filed Date: 12/20/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2018