in Re Robert W. Lambertz

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed February 3, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-11-00063-CV In Re Robert W. Lambertz, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009-67424 MEMORANDUM  OPINION On January 24, 2011, relator Robert W. Lambertz filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel (1) the Honorable Joseph Halbach, presiding judge of the 333rd District Court of Harris County to vacate his order signed January 7, 2010; (2) the Honorable Lisa Burkhalter to vacate her order signed August 21, 2009; (3) the Honorable Lee Duggan to vacate his order signed August 21, 2009[1]; (4) the Honorable Olen Underwood, presiding judge of the Second Judicial Region of Texas to vacate his order signed May 27, 2010, and (5) the Honorable Shearn Smith to vacate his orders signed September 8, 2010 and December 20, 2010. Each of the orders relator complains of were signed in underlying litigation filed by relator against the Harris County Appraisal District. Relator’s complaints arise from allegedly wrongful discovery sanctions, denials of recusal motions, and denial of his motion for new trial. The underlying case has now been tried. A final judgment was signed in that litigation on October 27, 2010. Mandamus relief is available when the trial court abuses its discretion and there is no adequate remedy at law, such as by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004); In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W.3d 298, 301 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding)). When reviewing a motion for recusal, the denial of a motion to recuse is appealable upon final judgment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(f). Consequently, a party challenging the denial of a motion to recuse has an adequate remedy at law. Similarly, the wrongful imposition of sanctions is subject to review by direct appeal after final judgment and, for that reason, is not subject to mandamus. In re Braden, 960 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, orig. proceeding); Central Freight Line, Inc. v. White, 731 S.W.2d 121, 122 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, orig. proceeding). Because the orders of which relator complains are subject to review by direct appeal we have no authority to issue writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus his related emergency motion to stay proceedings. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Seymore, and McCally. [1] Judges Burkhalter and Duggan were acting as visiting judges of the 333rd District Court of Harris County at the time they signed the orders.