Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Haris Abdullah sought a writ of mandamus concerning a November 20, 2024 final order entered by County Court at Law No. 3 of Montgomery County. He argued that the order was void because the trial court deprived him of due process by failing to follow the procedure in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 308b when determining the enforceability of an arbitration award allegedly based on foreign law.
Abdullah maintained that he raised his Rule 308b challenge before the trial court rendered judgment. He also argued that he could obtain mandamus relief despite his pending appeal from the denial of a bill of review. The Court of Appeals noted that the bill-of-review appeal was pending separately and expressed no opinion on any issue that might be presented in that appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Ninth Court of Appeals denied Abdullah’s mandamus petition. The court explained that mandamus relief requires both a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.
After reviewing the petition and record, the court concluded that Abdullah had not established that he lacked an adequate appellate remedy. Because that required element was not satisfied, the court denied the petition without deciding whether the trial court’s order was void or whether the asserted Rule 308b and due-process errors had merit.
Key Takeaways
- A mandamus relator must show both a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal.
- Abdullah failed to establish that appellate review was inadequate, so mandamus relief was unavailable.
- The court did not resolve the merits of Abdullah’s arbitration, foreign-law, or due-process arguments and expressed no opinion on his separate bill-of-review appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for an available appeal. Even a claim that a final order is void because of procedural or constitutional error does not eliminate the relator’s obligation to demonstrate that ordinary appellate review is inadequate.