NUMBER 13-23-00080-CV

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE CONAR CONSTRUCTION, LLC

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1

On February 27, 2023, relator Conar Construction, LLC filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus through which it asserted that the trial court abused its discretion by denying 

relator’s plea in abatement under the Residential Construction Liability Act (Act) because 

the real party in interest, Adan Gonzalez, failed to comply with the “Notice and Offer of 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 

47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

Settlement” provision of the Act. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 27.004. Relator also filed 

a motion for emergency stay of the trial court proceedings pending the resolution of its 

petition for writ of mandamus. 

This Court granted relator’s motion for emergency stay, ordered the trial court 

proceedings to be stayed, and requested Gonzalez to file a response to the petition for 

writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.4, 52.8, 52.10(b). We have now received and 

reviewed Gonzalez’s response to the petition for writ of mandamus. Gonzalez addresses 

the merits, requests that we lift the stay previously imposed in this case, and requests 

that we impose sanctions against relator for filing a petition for writ of mandamus which 

is “frivolous, without merit, and merely a delay tactic.”

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. 

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial 

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re 

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two 

requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the response filed by Gonzalez, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has 
3

not met its burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition 

for writ of mandamus. We grant Gonzalez’s motion to lift the stay, and we lift the stay 

imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10 (“Unless vacated or modified, an order 

granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). We have carefully 

considered Gonzalez’s motion for sanctions against relator, and we deny that motion as 

it pertains to this original proceeding. We are confident that the trial court will take any 

steps deemed necessary to ensure that further proceedings in this case will be conducted 

in accordance with all applicable professional standards. 

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the

3rd day of March, 2023.