See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen deny i ng r el i ef , t he co ur t m ay han d do wn an opi ni on b ut i s not 1 re q u i re d to d o s o .”); T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 47

. 4 (di s t i ng ui s hi ng op i ni on s an d m em ora nd um op i ni on s ). 

### NU M BER 13- 09- 0059 9-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG
IN R E M IG U EL S A L IN AS A N D MA R IA E . S A N IN D/B/A NEW A GE A DULT DA Y CA RE
On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus .
M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Garza

Per Curia m M emor andum Opini on 1 Throug h thi s o ri g ina l proceed ing , rel ators, M ig uel Sal ina s a nd M ar ia E. S ani n d/b /a New Age Adult Day C are, see k to com pel th e trial court to “reaso nab ly specif y the ba sis for g ra nti ng a new

tri al in this cause. ” For the re asons stated her ein , w e denythe peti ti on for w rit of

man dam us.2 I. Bac kg ro und Rea l par ty i n i nterest , I del fonsa C asarez , w a s in ju red i n an automobi le acc ide nt
w hile traveling in a van driv en by relato r Miguel S alinas. She b rought suit against relat ors a n d a n a ddi ti onal defendant, Greg or io Hue rt a, J r. , w ho i s n ot a par ty to thi s p ro ceed in g. The cas e w as tr ied to a j ur y w hic h as ses sed fiftypercentl iab il it y to “M ig uel Sal ina s & N ew Ag e Adul t D ay

C ar e, I nc. ” and f ifty

perce nt li abi li ty

to Hue rt a. The jur

y aw arded C asarez $2,638. 65 i n pas t medi cal ex pense s a nd $2, 000.00 for phy si cal i mpair ment, but fai led to
a ward a n y d a m a ges fo r p h ysica l p a in an d m e n ta l a n gui sh

. The tr ial co ur t enter e d a fina l jud gm e n t bas ed on the j ur y ’s v erdic t on June 8, 20 09. On J une 11, 2009, C asarezfil ed a moti on for new

tr ial co ntendi ng thatthe ju ry ’s respon ses w er e s o c ontrar y to the g re at
w eig ht an d preponderance of th e e v ide nce as to be mani festl y unj ustbec ause, des pit e “clear, une quiv ocal, u ncon troverted, an d com pelling” ev iden c e regarding Casarez’s “s ig nific ant i nju r[ ies ] t o he r le ft shoulder , upp er torso and frac ture of the left l eg at the ankle ,” the jury failed to award dam ages for pain and suf fering or ment al anguish. On July 7, th e trial court granted a n ew trial w ithou t specif y ing a reaso n. Accordin g to relato r’s pet ition for w rit of

man dam us, f urthe r ev ent s ensu ed a s follows: On O cto ber

the 13 2009, the cour t h e ld a D CC w her ein the jur y se lec ti on th for tr ial w as set for Nov ember 3 at 2:00 P.M

. 13 day s l ater , w hil e prepar ing rd for tr ial on O cto ber

29 , 200 9 R ela tors’ co unsel di sc ov er e d thatthe Tex as th Supreme C our

t has spec ific all y ru led that suc h a n ew tr ial order

i s i mprop er in In re Colum bia Med. C tr . O f Las C oli nas , 2 9 0 S

. W

. 3 d 2 0 4 ( Te x . J u l y 3, 200 9). Rel ators fil ed th is peti ti on for writ o f m a n damus and a moti on for emerg ency st ay on Oct ober 30, 2009, cont endi ng thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n g ra n ting a ne w tr ial w it hout
ex pla ini ng the basi s for i ts ru li ng . This C our

t g ra nted the mot ion for e merg ency st ay and requeste d tha t the real party in interestf ile a respon se to th e pe tition for w rit of man dam us.3

By respon se, C asare z a rgu e s, int er al ia, thatrela tors n ev er req uest ed th e tr ial co urt t o spec ify i ts re asons for g ra nti ng a ne w tr ial

. II. Ap pli cabl e Law The Tex as Rul es of Ci v il Procedu re recog niz e tha t t he tr ial co urt has the pow er to granta mo tion for new trial “for good cau se.” See T EX . R. C IV . P. 320. “ Tex as tr ial co urts hav e hi sto ri cal ly

been afforded broad di sc re ti on in granti ng newtri als , [ b]ut that dis creti on is not limitless. ” In re Colum bia Med. C tr . of Las C oli nas , 290 S. W .3d 2 04, 2 10 ( Tex . 200 9) (orig inal proce edin g) (internal citatio n om itted ). On July 3, 200 9, th e T exas Suprem e Court hel d i n Colum bia that , w hil e the tr ial co urt has si g nific ant dis creti on to g ra nt a new tr ial , t he tr ial co urt i s re q uired to spec ify the re asons it is order ing a new tr ial , and furth er

hel d tha t the “ re asons s houl d be cl ear ly i denti fied and re asona bly sp eci fic,” st ati ng that“ [b]road state me nts such as "in the intere st of justice" are not suf f iciently specif ic.” See i d. at 21 5. III. An alysi s Base d on the s upr eme co urt’ s a nal y si s i n Colum bia , t he tr ial co u rt 's f a ilure to dis cl ose it s reason s for g ra nti ng a ne w

tr ial w as an ar bit ra ry

and imper mis si ble abus e of dis creti on. See i

d. How ev er , mandamus w il l not is sue unl ess ( 1) the re lat or has made a demand on the res pondentand (2 ) the respon dent has deni ed reli ef or other w is e refused to ac t. See In r

e Per ritt , 9 9 2 S

. W

. 2 d 4 4 4 , 4 4 6 ( Te x . 1 9 99) ; Te rrazas v. Ram ir ez , 829 S.W .2d 712, 723 (Tex . 199 1) ; Axel son, Inc. v. Mc Il

hany , 798 S.W .2d 550 , 556 (Tex. 1990 ). An ex cept ion to thi s “ demand and refusal” req uirement ar is es if demand w oul d be futil e. See In r e Per ritt , 992 S.W .2d a t 446 ; Ter ra zas , 829 S.W .2d a t 723

. T here is nothing i n t h e reco rd before us w hich sho w s thatrelators ma de th eir
com plaintknown to the t ri a l co urt and the trial court ref used to act. Furthe r, there is4

n o t h in g i n t h e re c o rd o r ci rc u m s t a n c e s wh ic h in d ic a t e t h a t a n y s u c h d e m a n d wo u ld h a ve been futi le. Moreover, relators w aited f rom Ju ly 7, the date thatthe new trial w as granted , unt il Oct ober 30, the d ate t hat thi s or ig ina l proceed ing ens ued and i mmediat ely before the n ew tr ial date , befor e req uest ing any rel ief. Del ay

in the f il ing of

a peti ti on for mandamus re li ef mayw aiv e the r ig ht t o reli ef unles s t he rela tor c an j ust ify the del ay . See In re Int'l Profit Ass ocs ., Inc ., 27 4 S.W .3d 672 , 676 (Tex. 2009 ) (orig . procee ding) ( per curiam ). R elato rs hav e f ail ed to justi fy thei r del ay i n fil ing the ins tant proceed ing

. See i d. ; In r e Users Sys. Ser vs ., Inc ., 22 S. W .3d 3 31, 3 37 ( Tex . 199 9) ( or ig . proceed ing ); see, e.g. , Riv er center Assocs. v. Rivera , 858 S.W .2d 366 , 367 (Tex. 1993 ) ( orig. proceed ing). W hile it app ears that couns el did not dis cov er the supreme co ur

t’ s r uli ng i n Colum bia u n t il O c t o b e r 29 , we qu e ry t h a tsu c h a ll e ga t io n co n s t it u t e s a d e qu a t e ju s t if ic a t io n fo r t h e d e la y. IV. C oncl usi on The Co urt, hav ing ex amined and fully co nsi der ed th e petit ion for w ri t of mandamus and t he respons e the re to, is of the o pin ion thatrela tors h av e notsh ow n the msel v es ent itled t o t h e r e li ef

sought. Accord ingly , the stay previously impo sed b y

this Court is LIF TED. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.1 0( b) ( “U nle ss v acat ed or modi fied, a n order

g ra nti ng temporar

y reli ef is effect iv e unt il the cas e i s fin all y dec ide d.” ). The pe ti ti o n for w ri t of mandamus is D EN IED

. See i d. 52. 8(a).
P E RC U R I A M
Del iv er ed and filed the 20th day of Janua ry , 201 0.