### 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, t his Court issued its memorandum op inion and judgment s 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 mandate s “immediately” citing “good cause.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 argue s 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, Di az 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 D iaz’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 th is 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 mandate s , or in the alternative, motion to amend judgment s , 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

D elivered 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 cau se number 13
- 16
- 00464 because the Court does not issue mandates in original proceedings.