Court Opinion

ID: 2925602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:24:00.623733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:19.864451
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-08-278-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
_______________________________________________________

       IN RE: MAR-ROX, INC., ROXANNE PENA CANTU,
     LAW OFFICES OF MARK CANTU A/K/A LAW OFFICE
   OF MARK A. CANTU, AND MARK CANTU AS CUSTODIAN
  FOR AYSSA CELESTE CANTU AND KRYSTHA YANNI CANTU
_______________________________________________________

            On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and
                Motion for Emergency Relief
_______________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela
                   Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      On May 1, 2008, relators, Mar-Rox, Inc., Roxanne Peña Cantu, Law Offices of Mark

Cantu, a/k/a Law Office of Mark A. Cantu, and Mark Cantu as custodian of Ayssa Celeste

Cantu and Krystha Yanni Cantu, filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court in

which they allege that on May 1, 2008 respondent, the Honorable Noe Gonzalez, Presiding

Judge of the 370th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, abused his discretion
by denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Renew Challenge in Referring Case to Arbitration on Basis

of Unconscionability.

       Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus asked this Court to order the respondent to

vacate the May 1, 2008 order. In addition, relators filed an emergency motion to halt

foreclosure, asking this Court to order a stay of the foreclosure proceedings scheduled for

May 6, 2008.

       Having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the

emergency motion, this Court is of the opinion that the relators have not shown themselves

entitled to the relief sought. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

       This Court denies relators’ request for emergency relief and the petition for writ of

mandamus. The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

                                                         PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 2nd day of May, 2008.

                                              2