Court Opinion

ID: 9893653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-28 17:10:59.528322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:28.286664
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00452-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                IN RE CHANTEL ELIZONDO

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
            Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1

        By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Chantel Elizondo seeks to compel the trial

court to vacate the following orders signed on October 23, 2023: (1) the “Order on Father’s

Motion for Emergency Relief Regarding Travel Authorization”; and (2) the “Order on

Father’s Motion for Alternative Relief.” Relator further seeks to stay all trial court

        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).
proceedings pending the resolution of this petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.10.

       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).

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

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain

mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus, and we similarly

deny relator’s request to stay the trial court proceedings.

                                                              DORI CONTRERAS
                                                              Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the
25th day of October, 2023.

                                             2