Opinion filed December 4, 2025
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals __________
No. 11-25-00314-CV __________
IN RE N.N. AND K.N.
Original Mandamus Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION Relators have jointly filed an amended pro se petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motions for expedited consideration and temporary relief. Relators are represented by counsel in the underlying suit, and are not entitled to hybrid representation in a mandamus proceeding. See In re Siegel, No. 05-25-00860-CV, 2025 WL 2097709, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 25, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying pro se petition for writ of mandamus where relator was represented by counsel in trial court). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means Relators’ pro se amended petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for this court to consider. See In re Toscano, No. 04-07-00546-CV, 2007 WL 2376034, at
— 2 —
*1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 22, 2007, orig. proceeding) (citing Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding)). Consequently, we directed Relators to file a response showing cause why their amended petition should not be denied on the basis of hybrid representation. After reviewing Relators’ response, we conclude that Relators are not entitled to proceed pro se in this original proceeding because they continue to be represented by counsel in the underlying suit. Accordingly, we deny Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE
December 4, 2025 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.