v.
the State of Texas
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-26-00189-CV
__________________
IN RE MICHAEL A. SHOMATE AND BRIANNE K. SHOMATE
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 25-08-13306
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Michael A. Shomate and Brianne K. Shomate seek to compel the trial court: (1) to vacate or reconsider an Order on Motions Related to Discovery and Abatement, signed March 27, 2026; (2) conduct an immediate pre-trial evidentiary sanctions hearing; (3) require Real Party in Interest Servis One, Inc. d/b/a BSI Financial Services “to produce and authenticate a complete, native or source-supported, reconciled accounting tied to BSI’s internal servicing logs, and impose sanction[s] sufficient to cure the prejudice[;]” and (4) exclude “all undisclosed, typed-up, summary, or unreconciled accounting evidence[.]” As temporary relief, Relators request a stay of the trial currently scheduled for June 1, 2026, and “all foreclosure-related trial-court proceedings[.]”
[*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). “A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839 (internal quotations omitted). A trial court also abuses its discretion if it fails to correctly analyze or apply the law, because a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
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).
We conclude that on this record, the Relators have not shown that they are entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a); 52.10(a).
[*2]PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM Submitted on May 20, 2026 Opinion Delivered May 21, 2026 Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
[*3]