In Re Greenwich Lifesciences, Inc. v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Date FiledAugust 4, 2026
Docket01-26-00739-CV
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Opinion issued August 4, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-26-00739-CV
———————————
IN RE GREENWICH LIFESCIENCES, INC., Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Greenwich LifeSciences, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus
challenging two trial court orders, including a November 18, 2025 order denying
relator’s “Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue” and a July 7, 2026 order denying
relator’s “Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue.”1
1
The underlying case is Chris Lentz v. Greenwich LifeSciences, Inc., Cause No.
2025-12076, in the 113th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable
Rabeea Sultan Collier presiding.
In connection with its petition for writ of mandamus, relator also filed an
“Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief—Stay of All Trial Court Proceedings
Pending Resolution of Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” In the motion, relator
requested that the Court stay all proceedings in the trial court pending review of its
petition for writ of mandamus, stating that absent the stay, relator would “be
compelled to prepare for and proceed to trial,” currently set for November 2, 2026.
Real party in interest, Chris Lentz, filed a response in opposition to relator’s
emergency motion for stay.
We conclude that relator has failed to establish it is entitled to mandamus
relief, and therefore, the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We
dismiss any pending motions, including relator’s “Emergency Motion for
Temporary Relief,” as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Caughey, Johnson, and Dokupil.
2