In Re: Prime Income Asset Management, LLC, Prime Income Asset Management, Inc., Pillar Income Assett Management, Inc., and Bradford Phillips v. the State of Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 30, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00502-CV

IN RE PRIME INCOME ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, PRIME INCOME
ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., PILLAR INCOME ASSET
MANAGEMENT, INC., AND BRADFORD PHILLIPS, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 160th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-17668

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
Before the Court are relators’ April 30, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus

and motion for emergency relief. Relators challenge the trial court’s April 26, 2024

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Disburse Funds From Registry of

Court (the April 26, 2024 Order).

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relators lack an adequate appellate remedy. In

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a record

sufficient to show they are entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relators were required to file with their

petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the

relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A).

Here, the April 26, 2024 Order rules on a “Renewed Motion to Disburse

Funds from the Registry of the Court.” Relators omitted from their mandamus

record a copy of the referenced motion, including any associated responses or

replies, if any. The motion, including any associated responses or replies, if any,

are relevant and material to relators’ request for mandamus relief. Thus, we

conclude relators failed to meet their burden to provide a sufficient record.

In any event, based on our review of the petition and record before us, we

conclude relators failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a). We further deny relators’ emergency motion as moot.

24502f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III/
BILL PEDERSEN, III
JUSTICE

Smith, J., would grant a stay and request a response.

–2–