NUMBER 13-18-00204-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE 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

Relators Raul Coss Bu and Constructora Coss Bu, S.A. de C.V. filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus in the above cause seeking to set aside an order compelling arbitration 

in the underlying lawsuit arising from multiple loan agreements and collection efforts by 

real party in interest, Calle Naranjo, L.L.C. (Calle). By order previously issued, this Court 

granted relators’ emergency motion for temporary relief and requested 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 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). Under this 

standard of 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 of 

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. 2016) (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 appellate 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 outweigh 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 Med. 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. Mandamus “may 

be essential to preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or 
3

loss, [and] allow the appellate 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.

In 2006, to ensure consistency between federal and state procedures, the Texas 

Supreme Court held that mandamus was typically not available to review orders 

compelling arbitration. 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 mandamus 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. However, 

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 Exploration, 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 relief. While we agree that relators have raised 

some significant issues pertaining to due process, which might balance in favor of 
4

mandamus review under certain circumstances, we do not agree that the record 

establishes that the trial court abused its discretion regarding these matters. Further, 

relators have not established that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal regarding the 

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 Palacios, 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 the stay previously imposed in this case and we deny the petition for 

writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), 52.10(b).

DORI CONTRERAS

JUSTICE

Delivered and filed the

12th day of June, 2018.