Full Opinion

Opinion issued October 2, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-01000-CV ——————————— IN RE PRISCILLA FRANKS, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Priscilla Franks, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining that on September 28, 2026, real party in interest, Darrell Mayfield, acting pro se, filed an “Answer and Response to [Relator’s] Third Amended Original Petition” in the trial court.1 Relator’s petition complained that, 1 The underlying case is Priscilla Franks v. Darrell Mayfield and JDWM Enterprises, LLC, Cause No. 1269292, in the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Manpreet Monica Singh presiding. while Mayfield “expressly state[d]” in his answer that he was “appearing only in his individual capacity and [was] not appearing as counsel for [real party in interest] JDWM Enterprises, LLC, the substance of his filing demonstrate[d] that he [was] continuing to litigate and advocate the separate legal interests of JDWM Enterprises, LLC,” despite that the “trial court has previously required JDWM Enterprises, LLC to obtain counsel.” Relator further complained in her petition for writ of mandamus that the trial court has set the underlying case for trial on October 1, 2026, while there are “[o]ther matters requiring resolution” prior to trial, as well as a “third motion to recuse” which, according to relator, “remain[ed] pending.” Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus requested that this Court “[d]irect the trial court to enforce its prior requirement that JDWM Enterprises, LLC be represented by counsel,” to “[d]irect the trial court to prevent Darrell Mayfield from continuing to litigate the separate legal rights, defenses, and interests of JDWM Enterprises, LLC while appearing only in his individual capacity,” to “[d]irect the trial court to enforce its prior rulings that possession is not before the [trial] court,” and to “[r]equire resolution of the pending third recusal proceeding and necessary pretrial matters before the case proceeds to trial.” In connection with her petition for writ of mandamus, relator also filed an “Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief and Stay” pursuant to Texas Rule of 2 Appellate Procedure 52.10. In her motion, relator requested that this Court stay all underlying trial court proceedings pending review of the petition for writ of mandamus. The Court denies relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions, including relator’s “Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief and Stay,” as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Gunn. 3