In Re Texas Government Accountability Association v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed November 12, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-25-00324-CV
__________

IN RE TEXAS GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
ASSOCIATION

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Texas Government Accountability Association filed this original
petition for writ of mandamus asserting that Respondent, the Honorable Lori Ruiz-
Crutcher, presiding judge of the 244th District Court of Ector County, abused her
discretion in: (1) granting Real Party in Interest the City of Odessa’s (the City)
motion for protection, which prevented Relator from deposing the City’s mayor and
councilmembers; and (2) denying Relator’s motion to continue the hearing on the
City’s motion for summary judgment so as to allow for the deposition of a City
representative. Relator has also filed a motion for emergency temporary relief
seeking to stay all proceedings in the trial court, including the November 13, 2025
summary judgment hearing.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is “not issued solely as a matter of
right,” but at the discretion of the reviewing court. In re Walker, 683 S.W.3d 400,
402 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding); see also Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858
S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding). In exercising our discretion, we
must determine, among other things, whether there is an adequate remedy by appeal.
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). In assessing this question, the word “adequate” 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.” Id. at 136. “An appellate remedy is ‘adequate’ when any benefits to
mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.” Id. A party lacks an adequate
remedy by appeal with regard to an order denying discovery where: (1) the error
cannot be cured on appeal; (2) the party’s ability to present a viable claim or defense
is severely compromised so that a trial would be a waste of resources; or (3) the
appellate court is unable to evaluate the effect of the trial court’s error based on the
record. In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 256 (Tex. 2021) (orig.
proceeding) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843–44 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding)).
In this matter, Relator has not shown that it lacks an adequate remedy by
appeal. Relator is not facing a lengthy trial without the ability to present critical
evidence. Rather, it is facing a partial summary judgment ruling on the City’s
declaratory judgment action regarding an interlocal agreement between the parties.
The summary judgment hearing is set for tomorrow. If the City’s motion for partial
summary judgment is granted, and once the trial court’s ruling is severed or

2
incorporated into a final judgment, Relator can swiftly pursue appellate review of
that ruling as well as the trial court’s rulings on the City’s motion for protection and
Relator’s motion for continuance. There is no indication under these circumstances
that the alleged errors could not be cured by an appeal, that proceeding with the
summary judgment hearing would be a waste of judicial resources, or that we could
not evaluate the effect of any alleged error on appeal. See id. As such, we conclude
that “any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.
We decline to exercise our discretion to issue mandamus relief because
Relator has not demonstrated that it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See id. at
135–36. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion
for emergency temporary relief. In doing so, we express no opinion on the
underlying merits of the trial court’s challenged rulings.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

November 12, 2025
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.
and Williams, J.
Trotter, J., not participating.

3