Denied and Opinion Filed June 27, 2019.
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00164-CV
IN RE PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-07601
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness In this original proceeding, relator complains of the trial court’s order striking one of
relator’s expert witnesses. 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). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has an adequate remedy on appeal. See, e.g., Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148, 151 (Tex. 1996) (reviewing trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony on direct appeal); see also In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., No. 06–08–00109–CV, 2008 WL 4907589, *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov.17, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief as to order striking expert testimony because relator had adequate remedy by appeal); In re Thornton-Johnson, 65 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding) (relators had adequate remedy by appeal where relators’ other claims or defenses were unaffected by the trial court’s order excluding expert testimony). 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).
/Robbie Partida-Kipness/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE
190164F.P05
–2–