NUMBER 13-21-00072-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE C.A. WINN FAMILY ENTERPRISES, LTD., 

TOM C. WINN FAMILY ENTERPRISES, LTD., 

AND SOUTHERN WINN FAMILY ENTERPRISES, LTD.

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

On March 8, 2021, relators C.A. Winn Family Enterprises, Ltd., Tom C. Winn 

Family Enterprises, Ltd., and Southern Winn Family Enterprises, Ltd., filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its venue order transferring 

the underlying case from Nueces County, Texas, to Bexar County, Texas, where a related 

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,” but “[w]hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case”); 

id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

case was pending. Relators assert that venue is mandatory in Nueces County, Texas, 

because the underlying transaction is a “major transaction.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 15.020 (providing that those lawsuits which arise from a “major transaction” 

should be brought in the county specified by the agreement of the parties); In re Fisher, 

433 S.W.3d 523, 530 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (applying a “common-sense analysis” 

of the claims made to determine whether mandatory venue applies in a major 

transaction). 

Mandamus is both an extraordinary remedy and a discretionary one. In re Garza, 

544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain relief by writ 

of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order is void or a clear abuse 

of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of 

Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 

148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 

833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “A party may apply for a writ of mandamus 

with an appellate court to enforce the mandatory venue provisions of [Chapter 15 of the 

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code].” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 15.0642. 

“In mandatory-venue cases, mandamus relief is available without proof of an inadequate 

appellate remedy if the trial court clearly abused its discretion.” See In re Fox River Real 

Estate Holdings, Inc., 596 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding). 

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

the response filed by the real parties in interest, Lloyd Gillespie, 2350 Senator Partners, 

LLC, and Gillespie Partners, Ltd., and the additional briefing provided by the parties, is of 
3

the opinion that relators have failed to meet their burden to obtain relief. See TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 15.020; In re Fisher, 433 S.W.3d at 530; see also In re EOG 

Res., Inc., No. 12-18-00054-CV, 2018 WL 3197612, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 29, 

2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus. 

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

10th day of June, 2021.