### NUMBER 13 - 17 - 00 602 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JUSTIN SMITH

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez 1 By petition for writ of mandamus, Justin Smith asserts that the trial court’s September 28, 2017 order of attachment is void because it conflicts with the emergency orders issued by the Texas Supreme Court following Hurricane Harvey

. 2 These emergency orders stated that “all courts in Texa s should consider disaster

- caused delays as good cause for modifying or suspending all deadlines and procedures

— whether

1 See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but when “ denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opi nions and memorandum opinions).

2 This original proceeding joins related matters which are currently pending before the Court in cause numbers 13

- 16

- 00612

- CV, 13

- 17

- 00122

- CV, and 13

- 17

- 00589

- CV.2

prescribed by statute, rule, or order

— in any case, civil or criminal.” See Supreme Court of Texas, Extension of Emergency Order Authori zing Modification and Suspension of Court Procedures in Proceedings Affected by Disaster , Misc. Docket No. 17

- 9125 (Sept. 26, 2017) (Joint Order, Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 17

- 013); Supreme Court of Texas, Emergency Order Authorizing Modifi cation and Suspension of Court Procedures in Proceedings Affected by Disaster , M isc. Docket No. 17

– 9091 (Aug. 28, 2017) (Joint Order, Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 17

- 010) ;; see also T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE A NN

. § 22.0035 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.)

. This Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in interest, Arnold & Itkin, LLP. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W.3d 300 , 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proce eding) (per curiam ). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys. , 492 S.W.3d 276 , 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W.3d at 302 ; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)

. Mandamus relief is also available when an underlying order is void. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. , 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). In such circumstances, the relator need not show it lacks a n adequate remedy by appeal. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co. , 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding); In re Dickason , 987 S.W.2d 570, 571 (T ex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus , the response, and the applicable law , is of the opinion that the relator ha s not shown3

himself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we LIFT the stay previously imposed in this cause and we DENY the petitio n for writ of mandamus

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

/s/ Rogelio Valdez ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice D elivered and filed t he 1 6 th day of November , 2017

.