In re Adrian Sibley — Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Opinion Withdrawn; Stay Lifted; Motion for Rehearing Granted; Motion to
Consolidate 	Dismissed; 	Petition 	for 	Writ 	of 	Mandamus 	Conditionally
Granted in Part and Denied in Part; and Memorandum Opinion filed October
22, 2026.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-26-00855-CV
IN RE ADRIAN SIBLEY, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
County Civil Court at Law No. 4
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1217589
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
Before this court is a motion for rehearing. On August 19, 2026, relator
Adrian Sibley filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the county court’s
May 13, 2026 final judgment in the underlying forcible detainer action. Relator
contends that the county court did not have jurisdiction to render the final
judgment because: (1) she did not timely perfect her appeal from the justice court

2
to the county court; and (2) the county court rendered the final judgment while the
case was removed to federal court. Relator asks this court to compel the county
court to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to vacate the final judgment.
On September 24, 2026, this court issued a memorandum opinion denying
relator’s petition because the record did not demonstrate that the county court
abused its discretion. We noted that the record did not include sufficient proof that
relator had effectively removed the underlying action to federal court when the
final judgment was signed. After we denied the petition, relator timely filed a
motion for rehearing and supplemental record.
After 	considering 	the 	rehearing 	motion, 	the 	supplemental 	record, 	the
response from real parties in interest, and relator’s reply, we grant the motion for
rehearing, withdraw our September 24, 2026 memorandum opinion, and issue this
memorandum opinion in its place, conditionally granting relator’s petition in part.
Analysis
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clear
abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–38 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial
court abuses its discretion when it signs an order in a case in which it has no
jurisdiction. See In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam). An order issued without jurisdiction is void, and the
relator need not show that she lacks an adequate appellate remedy to obtain
mandamus relief. Id.
Once a case is removed from state court to federal court, the state court loses
all jurisdiction over the case, and “‘its subsequent proceedings and judgment [are]
not . . . simply erroneous, but absolutely void.’” Roman Cath. Archdiocese of San

3
Juan, P.R. v. Acevedo Feliciano, 589 U.S. 57, 63–64 (2020) (quoting Kern v.
Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 485, 493 (1880)). But to effect removal, the removing party
must file a copy of the notice of removal with the clerk of the state court. See 28
U.S.C. § 1446(d) (A notice of removal served on all adverse parties and filed with
the clerk of the state court “shall effect the removal and the State court shall
proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”); see also Anthony v.
Wilderness Oak, LLC, No. 04-24-00564-CV, 2026 WL 2248826, at *1 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio Aug. 5, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (removal is not effective
until the removing party files a copy of the notice of removal with the clerk of the
state court); Hilton v. NBC Bank-Heights, No. 01-96-01366-CV, 1998 WL 135105,
at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 19, 1998, pet. denied) (same).
The supplemental record filed by relator includes a document file-stamped
on May 8, 2026 by the Harris County Clerk, in which relator provided notice that
she had removed the case from the county court to a federal district court. It also
includes a July 7, 2026 order from the federal district court remanding the case to
the county court. Because the county court signed the final judgment on May 13,
2026, while the case was still pending in the federal district court, the final
judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction. See In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235
S.W.3d 619, 624 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding) (“From the time the case was
removed to federal court until it was remanded to state court, the state court was
prohibited from taking further action.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d))).
Accordingly, we grant relator’s motion for rehearing. We conditionally grant
relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in part and direct the county court to vacate
its May 13, 2026 final judgment. We are confident the county court will comply,
and the writ will issue only if it does not. All other relief requested in the petition

4
for writ of mandamus is denied.1 We dismiss relator’s motion to consolidate as
moot and lift the stay previously entered by this court.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Hart, and Bridges.
1 In a reply, relator withdraws her jurisdictional challenge to the final judgment based on
the case’s removal to federal court. She instead proceeds solely on her argument that the county
court never acquired jurisdiction because, among other reasons, she did not timely perfect her
appeal from justice court, which she claims requires dismissal of the case. The record, however,
does not demonstrate that relator is entitled to mandamus relief on such grounds. Although
relator has withdrawn the issue, we still conditionally grant mandamus relief 	in part and direct
the county court to vacate the final judgment because the case’s removal to federal court
rendered the judgment absolutely void. See Easterline v. Bean, 121 Tex. 327, 334, 49 S.W.2d
427, 429 (1932) (“[A] void judgment is one entirely null within itself, and which is not
susceptible of ratification or confirmation, and its nullity cannot be waived.”); In re Garza, 126
S.W.3d 268, 271 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding) (“[A] party who agrees to a
void order has agreed to nothing.”).