Court Opinion

ID: 9925522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-20 18:10:41.775435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:00.150222
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-24-00043-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                            IN RE SHANNON MOCZYGEMBA

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                     Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña
                    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

        On January 17, 2024, relator Shannon Moczygemba filed a petition for writ of

mandamus through which she asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing

to set aside a mediated settlement agreement and by refusing to set a hearing on a motion

to declare the agreement unenforceable. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 6.602, 153.0071.

Relator also filed an emergency motion to stay the trial court proceedings, including the

        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).
final hearing set for January 18, 2024, pending the resolution of her 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

relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. We

likewise deny relator’s emergency motion to stay the trial court proceedings.

                                                              NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                              Justice

Delivered and filed on the
18th day of January, 2024.

                                            2