### NUMBER 13 - 18 - 00204 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN R E RAUL COSS BU AND CONSTRUCTORA COSS BU, S.A. DE C.V.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras Relator s Raul Coss Bu and Constructora Coss Bu, S.A. de C.V. f iled a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause seeking to set aside an order compelling arbit ration in the underlying lawsuit arising from multiple loan a greements and collection efforts by real party in interest, Calle Naranjo, L.L.C. (Calle). By order previously issued, t his Court granted relators ’ emergency motion for temporary relief and requ ested a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from Calle. 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.2

In re Nationwi de 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). Under this standard o f review, we defer to the trial court ’ s factual determinations that are supported by evidence, but we review the trial court ’ s legal determinations de novo. See In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P. , 279 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). An abuse o f discretion occurs when a trial court ’ s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable, or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide , 494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia , 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to analyze or apply the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Nationwide , 494 S.W.3d at 712; In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2 016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). A trial court abuses its discretion concerning factual matters if the record establishes that the trial court could have reached only one conclusion. Walker , 827 S.W.2d at 841. We determine the adequacy of an appel late remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co ., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d at 136. In deciding whether the benefits of mandamus o utweigh the detriments, we weigh the public and private interests involved , and we look to the facts in each case to determine the adequacy of an appeal. In re United Servs. Auto. Ass ’ n , 307 S.W.3d 299, 313 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding); In re McAllen Me d. Ctr., Inc. , 275 S.W.3d 458, 469 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d at 136

– 37. M andamus “ may be essential to preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or3

loss, [and] allow the appellat e courts to give needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive in appeals from final judgments. ” In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am . 148 S.W.3d at 136. I n 2006, to ensure consistency between federal and state procedures, the Texa s Supreme Court held that mandamus was typically not available to review orders compelling arb itration

. See In re Palacios , 221 S.W.3d 564, 565 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding ). In 2009, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed this proposition and stated that m andamus is “ generally unavailable ” to review orders compelling arbitration because petitioners can “ rarely ” show that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Gulf Exploration, L

. L

. C

. , 289 S.W.3d 836, 841

– 42 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). The supreme court explained that the adequacy of an appellate remedy “ depends on a careful balance of the case
- specific benefits and detriments of delaying or interrupting a particular proceeding

. ” Id. ; see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d at 136. H owever, because both the federal and state arbitration acts “ pointedly exclude ” immediate appellate review of orders compelling arbitration, “ any balancing must tilt strongly against mandamus review. ” In re Gulf Explorati on, L

. L

. C

. , 289 S.W.3d at 842. The “ adequacy ” of an appeal may be a closer question when the legislature has weighed in on both sides of the balance as , for example, when legislative mandates conflict. Id. ; see , e.g. , In re Poly
- America, L.P ., 262 S.W.3d 337, 352 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain mandamus reli ef. While we agree that relators have raised some significant issues pertaining to due process , which might balance in favor of4

mandamus review under certain circumstances , we do not agree that the record establishes that the trial court abused its discre tion regarding these matters. Further, relators have not established that the y lack an adequate remedy by appeal regarding t he remaining issues presented in this original proceeding. See In re Gulf Exploration, L

. L

. C

. , 289 S.W.3d at 841

– 42 See In re Pala cios , 221 S.W.3d at 565; In re Vantage Drilling Int ’ l , No. 01
- 17
- 00592
- CV, __ S.W.3d __, __, 2018 WL 2666945, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2018, orig. proceeding ) ; Frontera Generation Ltd. P ’ ship v. Mission Pipeline Co ., 400 S.W.3d 102, 114 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2012, no pet.) (combined app. & orig. proceeding) ; see also In re Adelphi Group, Ltd. , No. 05
- 16
- 01060
- CV, 2016 WL 5266655, at *1 (Tex. App

. — Dallas Sept. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we lift t he stay prev iously imposed in this case and we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a), 52.10(b).

DORI CONTRERAS JUSTICE D elivered and filed th e 12th day of June , 201 8

.