NUMBERS 13-16-00210-CV AND 13-16-00463-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, Appellant,

v.

RICARDO DIAZ MIRANDA, Appellee.

On appeal from the 275th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

NUMBER 13-16-00464-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE PLAINSCAPITAL BANK

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
2

ORDER 

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

On March 15, 2018, this Court issued its memorandum opinion and judgments 

disposing of these three above-referenced causes.

1

 On March 26, 2018, appellant 

PlainsCapital Bank (PlainsCapital) filed three combined post-judgment motions entitled 

“Emergency Motion to Expedite Issuance of Mandate or Motion to Amend Judgment.” 

In the combined motion, PlainsCapital specifically requests that this Court issue its 

mandates “immediately” citing “good cause.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c) (“The mandate

may be issued earlier if the parties so agree, or for good cause on the motion of a party.”); 

see also id. R. 18.1(a) (outlining deadlines of when a court of appeals may issue its 

mandate). In its motion, PlainsCapital argues that appellee Ricardo Diaz Miranda (Diaz) 

“is a Mexican national . . . with substantial ties to Mexico that allow him to conceal or 

otherwise abscond with assets that PlainsCapital may use to satisfy its judgment.” At trial 

in the underlying appeals, Diaz testified to owning and operating a trucking business in 

Mexico. PlainsCapital asserts, however, that its asset search in Mexico “did not find any 

record documents that show Diaz held assets in those states.” PlainsCapital further 

argues that due to Diaz’s “significant business connections and assets in Mexico,” a 

“substantial risk” that Diaz “will move or hide assets out of the jurisdictional limits for 

judgment enforcement in the United States” exists. As a result, PlainsCapital seeks 

issuance of an early mandates in this case to aid PlainsCapital’s enforcement of our 

 

1 These appellate cause numbers are: (1) 13-16-00210-CV; (2) 13-16-00463-CV; and (3) 13-16-

00464-CV. See PlainsCapital Bank v. Diaz Miranda; In re PlainsCapital Bank, Nos. 13-16-00210-CV, 13-

16-00463-CV, 13-16-00464-CV, 2018 WL 1325779 at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 15, 2018, no pet. 

h.). 
3

judgments. In its combined motion, we note that PlainsCapital included a certificate of 

conference which states that counsel for PlainsCapital conferred with counsel for Diaz 

and Diaz’s counsel “does not oppose this motion.”

Having examined and considered PlainsCapital’s combined, unopposed motion to 

expedite issuance of mandates, or in the alternative, motion to amend judgments, this 

Court is of the opinion that the motion to expedite judgment should be GRANTED. See 

id. R. 18.1(c). The Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the mandates in appellate cause 

number 13-16-00210-CV and 13-16-00463-CV on April 3, 2018.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

27th day of March, 2018.

 

2 We dismiss as moot PlainsCapital’s motion to expedite issuance of mandate as it relates to 

appellate cause number 13-16-00464 because the Court does not issue mandates in original proceedings.