Court Opinion

ID: 9363421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 00:10:05.035172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.813576
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00422-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                              IN RE NORTE HOLDINGS, LLC

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                     Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña
                      Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

        By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Norte Holdings, LLC seeks to compel the

trial court to: (1) vacate its June 2, 2022 order staying the trial court proceedings; (2)

vacate its August 16, 2022 order denying reconsideration of that ruling; and (3) rule on

relator’s application for recognition of a foreign judgment. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. §§ 36A.001–.011 (comprising the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments

         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).
Recognition Act).

       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 on 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 relator bears the burden of proving these two

requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

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

the response filed by real parties in interest Desarrollo Inmobiliario Las Haciendas, S.A.

De C.V. and Florencio Ignacio Guerra Portilla a/k/a Florencio Guerra, the reply filed by

relator, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has failed to meet

its burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.4, 52.5, 52.8(a), (b), (d).

                                                                 L. ARON PEÑA JR.
                                                                 Justice

Delivered and filed on the
13th day of January, 2023.

                                                 2