In re Scott Mitchell Obeginski

Summary

The Ninth Court of Appeals of Texas denied Scott Mitchell Obeginski’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a January 9, 2026 sanctions order. The court concluded that the record did not support his claims that the order was void, that the trial court lacked evidentiary support, or that he lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

Holdings

1. Mandamus relief was denied because the record did not support Obeginski's argument that the trial court issued a void order.
2. Obeginski did not establish that he lacked an adequate remedy by appeal because the trial court had signed a final judgment and he had not shown that he lacked an opportunity to supersede it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's sanctions order was void because the trial court allegedly acted as a fact witness in violation of Texas Rule of Evidence 605.
2. Whether the sanctions order imposed relief without adequate notice because the sanctions motion allegedly did not request attorney's fees or other relief.
3. Whether the sanctions order lacked evidentiary support because the trial court allegedly received no sworn testimony or competent evidence.
4. Whether Obeginski lacked an adequate remedy by appeal because the trial court scheduled a compliance hearing before an appeal could be resolved.

Disposition

writ_denied