Court Opinion

ID: 9906455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-02 18:11:05.127702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:25.032257
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00472-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                   IN RE PRESTON J. DUGAS III AND
           DUGAS & CIRCELLI, PLLC F/K/A PJD LAW FIRM, PLLC

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
                 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

        Relators Preston J. Dugas III and Dugas & Circelli, PLLC f/k/a PJD Law Firm,

PLLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which they seek to compel the trial

court to vacate an October 19, 2023 order which enforced a rule 11 agreement, and “if

necessary,” or alternatively, vacate one portion of a December 3, 2020 order which

        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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
required the interpleader of contested funds. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 11, 43.

      Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus relief is also appropriate when a trial

court issues an order “beyond its jurisdiction” because the order is void ab initio. In re

Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting

In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)).

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

the response filed by South Wind Public Adjusters Inc., and the applicable law, is of the

opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the

petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                              CLARISSA SILVA
                                                              Justice

Delivered and filed on the
30th day of November, 2023.

                                            2