In re Gonzales, a case about untimely designation of a responsible third party, reviewed authority about “inadequate remedy” for purposes of mandamus relief: “In both cases, the defendants moved for leave to designate a responsible third party from whom the plaintiffs could not recover, creating an imbalance in the proportionate responsibility framework. In both cases, the defendants did not satisfy section 33.004’s provisions that protect a plaintiff’s right not to try the case against an empty chair. And in both cases, the trial courts abused their discretion by granting the defendants’ motions. If Dawson was an appropriate case to grant mandamus relief, then so is this one; requiring Gonzales to go through a trial before remedying the trial court’s error would defeat the substantive right that subsection (j) protects.” No. 20-0506 (March 5, 2021).

The post Mandamus-able appeared first on 600 Hemphill.