Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Makenzy Fernandes filed an original petition for writ of mandamus in the First District Court of Appeals, challenging a trial court order issued May 26, 2026. The underlying trial court order denied Fernandes’ motion to reconsider an earlier order compelling compliance with a subpoena. The underlying case, Jay K. Sears v. Women’s Justice Network USA and J. Doe (No. 2025-78000), is pending in the 113th District Court of Harris County before Judge Rabeea Sultan Collier.
Fernandes sought mandamus relief from the Court of Appeals to overturn the trial court’s denial of the reconsideration motion.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeals denied Fernandes’ mandamus petition in its entirety. The court found no basis for mandamus relief and dismissed all pending motions as moot. The decision was issued as a per curiam memorandum opinion by a three-judge panel consisting of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Morgan.
Key Takeaways
- Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court lacks authority or acts in a clearly erroneous manner.
- The court rejected Fernandes’ challenge to the subpoena compliance order.
- The trial court’s order stands; all related motions in the appellate proceeding are dismissed.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the high bar for obtaining mandamus relief. Parties dissatisfied with trial court orders compelling subpoena compliance cannot use mandamus as an alternative appeal mechanism. The narrow scope of mandamus review protects trial court authority while providing parties with appropriate appellate procedures through traditional appeal channels.