                                      In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              _________________

                               NO. 09-18-00444-CV
                              _________________

                          IN RE ANISSA M. BROOKS

________________________________________________________________________

                              Original Proceeding
                172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
                          Trial Cause No. E-201,261
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Anissa M. Brooks petitioned for mandamus relief from an order denying a

motion to transfer venue. The trial court signed an order denying Brooks’s motion

to transfer to the county of her residence on May 4, 2018. On June 5, 2018, the trial

court severed into a separate action the claim of the plaintiff, Kevin Hudspeth,

against Allstate Fire and Casualty Company. In a motion filed on July 5, 2018,

Brooks asked the trial court to reconsider its venue ruling in light of the severance

of Hudspeth’s cause of action against his insurer. The trial court denied her motion


                                         1
on August 27, 2018. On September 28, 2018, the trial court denied Brooks’s motion

requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law. Brooks filed her mandamus

petition on December 3, 2018.

      Brooks argues that Hudspeth chose an improper venue to bring claims against

her because she is not a resident of Jefferson County, the accident giving rise to the

litigation did not occur in Jefferson County, the severed defendant does not have a

principal office in Jefferson County, and the improperly joined breach-of-contract

claim against Hudspeth’s insurer has been severed from this suit.

      A party may appeal a venue ruling following a trial on the merits. See Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.064(b) (West 2017). After examining and

considering the petition and appendix, the mandamus response, and the applicable

law, we conclude that the relator has not shown that she lacks an adequate remedy

by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex.

2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.8(a).

      PETITION DENIED.
                                                                  PER CURIAM
Submitted on December 14, 2018
Opinion Delivered December 20, 2018

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

                                          2
