NUMBER 13-15-00225-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE PRONTO GENERAL AGENCY, LTD.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Through this original proceeding, relator Pronto General Agency, Ltd. contends 

that the trial court erred in denying its motion to quash substituted service. Specifically, 

Pronto seeks to compel the trial court to vacate its order denying Pronto’s motion to quash 

substituted service of citation and to withdraw its order granting the motion to substitute 

service filed by real parties, Noe Rojas and Elvia Mercado. 

 

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.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must demonstrate that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re 

Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of 

Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses 

its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear 

and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law 

correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex.

2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The adequacy of an appellate remedy must be 

determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re 

Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Because this 

balance depends heavily on circumstances, it must be guided by the analysis of principles 

rather than the application of simple rules that treat cases as categories. In re McAllen 

Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We evaluate the 

benefits and detriments of mandamus review and consider whether mandamus will 

preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.

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

the response, the reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met 

its burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 

at 135–36. Specifically, relator has not shown it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal, 

considering, for instance, additional or alternative pleadings filed during the underlying 

proceeding, see, e.g., Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199, 202 (Tex. 

1985), or by appeal after a final judgment has been rendered. See, e.g., Boreham v. 
3

Hartsell, 826 S.W.2d 193, 197 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no writ). Accordingly, we lift the 

stay previously imposed in this cause and we deny the petition for writ of mandamus 

without regard to the merits and without prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

17th day of September, 2015.