Court Opinion

ID: 9500084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 18:10:25.023317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:24.278764
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00265-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                  IN RE MARCO A. CANTU

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION
                     Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
                     Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

        By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Marco A. Cantu seeks to vacate all orders

issued by the Honorable Mario E. Ramirez, who was then serving as the Administrative

Local Presiding Judge for the district courts of Hidalgo County; the Honorable Missy

Medary, serving as the Presiding Judge for the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region, and

the Honorable Rogelio Valdez, serving as an assigned judge in the underlying

         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. Relator contends that the orders subject to review in this petition for writ of

mandamus were issued without authority or jurisdiction.

       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. However, when a trial court issues

an order “beyond its jurisdiction,” mandamus is proper because such an 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)). In such an event, the relator need not show that it lacks an adequate appellate

remedy. See In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 256, 261 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding)

(per curiam); In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d at 605.

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

the record, the response filed by the real party in interest, and the applicable law, is of the

opinion that the relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly,

                                              2
we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                 JAIME TIJERINA
                                                 Justice

Delivered and filed on the
31st day of July, 2023.

                                             3