What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the mandamus petition because it lacks authority to order a justice court unless doing so is needed to preserve the appellate court's jurisdiction, which was not shown here.

Who is affected by this decision?

The relator, David Disraeli, and the underlying justice court proceeding are affected because the appellate court declined to intervene; the justice court's actions remain in place.

What happens next in the underlying case?

Because the appellate court dismissed the petition as outside its jurisdiction, any challenge to the justice court's decision must proceed through available routes in the trial court or by showing a basis that would allow an appellate court to preserve its jurisdiction.

Can this be appealed?

This dismissal is an appellate court's determination of lack of jurisdiction in an original mandamus proceeding; a direct appeal is not available from an original mandamus dismissal, but the relator could seek relief by pursuing appropriate remedies in the justice court or by demonstrating circumstances that would justify an appellate mandamus to preserve jurisdiction.

In Re David Disraeli v. the State of Texas

Docket 03-26-00345-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

OtherDismissed

Filed: Apr 22, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 03-26-00345-CV

Original mandamus proceeding challenging a justice court's failure to enforce an arbitration provision

Summary

The court dismissed a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by David Disraeli challenging a justice court’s refusal to enforce an arbitration clause. The Third Court of Appeals concluded it lacks jurisdiction to issue mandamus against a justice of the peace or justice court unless issuance is necessary to preserve the appellate court’s jurisdiction, and the relator did not show that necessity. Because the jurisdictional prerequisite was not met, the court dismissed the mandamus petition and all pending motions as moot.

Issues Decided

Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a justice of the peace or a justice court
Whether issuance of mandamus was necessary to preserve the court of appeals' jurisdiction in this matter

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on statutory and precedent-based limits on appellate mandamus power, noting that a court of appeals may only issue a writ against a justice court when necessary to preserve its jurisdiction. The relator did not argue or demonstrate that such necessity existed here. Because the jurisdictional requirement was not satisfied, the court could not grant mandamus and therefore dismissed the petition and related motions as moot.

Authorities Cited

Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221
In re GoadNo. 03-23-00387-CV, 2023 WL 4604672 (Tex. App.—Austin July 18, 2023, orig. proceeding)
In re Smith355 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2011, orig. proceeding)

Parties

Relator: David Disraeli
Judge: Gisela D. Triana

Key Dates

Filed: 2026-04-22

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult a lawyer about trial-court remedies
Discuss options for pursuing enforcement of the arbitration provision in the justice court or, if appropriate, asking the justice court to certify a question or otherwise preserve issues for higher court review.
2
Consider showing necessity to preserve jurisdiction
If seeking mandamus from an appellate court again, prepare evidence and argument demonstrating why a writ is necessary to preserve the appellate court's jurisdiction.
3
Monitor or respond in the justice court
Continue to participate in the underlying justice court proceedings, file timely motions or objections there, and preserve the record for any future appellate review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court dismissed the mandamus petition because it lacks authority to order a justice court unless doing so is needed to preserve the appellate court's jurisdiction, which was not shown here.
Who is affected by this decision?: The relator, David Disraeli, and the underlying justice court proceeding are affected because the appellate court declined to intervene; the justice court's actions remain in place.
What happens next in the underlying case?: Because the appellate court dismissed the petition as outside its jurisdiction, any challenge to the justice court's decision must proceed through available routes in the trial court or by showing a basis that would allow an appellate court to preserve its jurisdiction.
Can this be appealed?: This dismissal is an appellate court's determination of lack of jurisdiction in an original mandamus proceeding; a direct appeal is not available from an original mandamus dismissal, but the relator could seek relief by pursuing appropriate remedies in the justice court or by demonstrating circumstances that would justify an appellate mandamus to preserve jurisdiction.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN


                                     NO. 03-26-00345-CV




                                     In re David Disraeli




                 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY



                           MEMORANDUM OPINION


              Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the justice

court’s allegedly improper failure to enforce an arbitration provision in the underlying matter.

We lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a justice of the peace or justice court

unless it is necessary to preserve our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221 (writ power of

court of appeals); In re Goad, No. 03-23-00387-CV, 2023 WL 4604672 (Tex. App.—Austin

July 18, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing Twenty First Century Holdings, Inc.

v. Precision Geothermal Drilling, L.L.C., No. 03-13-00081-CV, 2015 WL 1882267, at *6 (Tex.

App.—Austin Apr. 23, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue

writ of mandamus against judge of justice court unless necessary to preserve jurisdiction);

Rodriguez v. Womack, No. 14–10–01213–CV, 2012 WL 19659 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.]

Jan. 5, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting court of appeals’ lack of jurisdiction to issue

mandamus against justice court). Relator does not argue or show that a writ of mandamus is

necessary to preserve our jurisdiction in this matter. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to issue a
writ of mandamus against the justice court in this case. See In re Smith, 355 S.W.3d 901, 901–

02 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2011, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (where appellants did not argue or

show writ was necessary to preserve jurisdiction, appellate court lacked jurisdiction to issue writ

of mandamus against justice of peace).

               Having reviewed the petition and the record provided, we dismiss the petition for

want of jurisdiction and dismiss pending motions as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).



                                             __________________________________________
                                             Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis

Filed: April 22, 2026




                                                2