Court Opinion

ID: 9391066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 17:10:36.364525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.361837
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00090-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                            IN RE TEODORO GUERRERO JR.

                            On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina
                  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

        Relator Teodoro Guerrero Jr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting

through four issues that the trial court erred by concluding that real party in interest Ana

Maria Gutierrez-Salinas possesses standing in a suit regarding grandparent access to

minor children. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 102.004(a)(1).

        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.
47.1 (requiring the appellate courts to “hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that
addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and
memorandum opinions).
      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. Because a trial court’s temporary

orders are not appealable, mandamus is an appropriate vehicle for review. See In re

Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327, 334–35 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re

Walser, 648 S.W.3d 442, 445 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, orig. proceeding); In re

Strickland, 358 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, orig. proceeding); In re

Ostrofsky, 112 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding).

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

the record, the response filed by Gutierrez-Salinas, and the applicable law, is of the

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

petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                     JAIME TIJERINA
                                                                     Justice

Delivered and filed on the
28th day of April, 2023.

                                            2