# in Re Harold Goldberg

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · November 9, 2017

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4219586

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** November 9, 2017
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4219586

## Opinion text

Opinion issued November 9, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-17-00673-CV
———————————
IN RE HAROLD GOLDBERG, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

We withdraw our October 17, 2017 opinion and issue this opinion in its stead.

In this mandamus proceeding, relator contends that the trial court abused its
discretion by granting a motion for new trial.1 We lack jurisdiction over the associate

judge.2

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Panel consist of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Brown.

1
The underlying case is In the Matter of the Marriage of Jennifer Karpinsky-
Goldberg v. Harold Goldberg, cause number 2016-68107, pending in the 308th
District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable David Sydow presiding.
2
See In re Clark, No. 01-15-00458-CV, 2015 WL 3877787, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] June 23, 2015, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.)
(holding that court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over associate judge). We
note that the Texas Legislature has recently changed our mandamus jurisdiction to
encompass associate judges. See Act of May 27, 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., ch. 1013,
H.B. 1480, § 1 (to be codified as an amendment to TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§ 22.221). However, the change in the statute applies to suits filed after September
1, 2017. Id. § 2 (“Section 22.221(b) . . . as amended by this Act, applies only to a
suit . . . filed on or after the effective date of this Act.”). Because the underlying
suit was filed prior to September 1, 2017, we lack jurisdiction.
2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4219586. Public record. Not legal advice.