CourtListener 10772088•In Re Staci Sue Semrad v. the State of Texas
In Re Staci Sue Semrad v. the State of Texas
CourtListener 10772088Txctapp95 de jan. de 2026
Texto completo
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-26-00001-CV
__________________
IN RE STACI SUE SEMRAD
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 25-08-12510
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Staci Sue Semrad filed a petition for (1) a writ of mandamus
compelling the trial court to vacate parts of a final Order Granting Defendant’s
Dispositive Motions and Imposing Sanctions, dated October 19, 2025, (2) a writ of
prohibition prohibiting the trial court from interfering with this Court’s jurisdiction
over Appeal Number 09-25-00378-CV, and (3) a writ of injunction enjoining Real
Party in Interest Tavi Lynnee Sellers and her attorneys from attempting to enforce
sanctions and penalties contained in the trial court’s Order dated October 19, 2025.
1
We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by
the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). We
determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of
mandamus review against the detriments, considering whether extending mandamus
relief will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or
loss. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding).
“The operative word, ‘adequate[,]’ has no comprehensive definition; it is simply a
proxy for the careful balance of jurisprudential considerations that determine when
appellate courts will use original mandamus proceedings to review the actions of
lower courts.” Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136.
Relator complains in part that the trial court ordered that the sanctions
imposed in the final judgment cannot be superseded. A party may seek review of a
determination whether to permit suspension of enforcement of a judgment by filing
a motion for appellate review in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(a)(4).
Having reviewed the petition and record, we conclude that Relator has an
adequate remedy by appeal regarding the issues presented in the petition.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writs of mandamus, prohibition, and
injunction. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
2
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 2, 2026
Opinion Delivered January 5, 2026
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
3
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.