in Re Pronto General Agency Ltd.
13-15-00225-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 17, 2015Background
- Relator Pronto General Agency, Ltd. filed an original mandamus petition challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to quash substituted service of citation.
- Real parties in interest are Noe Rojas and Elvia Mercado, who sought and obtained an order allowing substituted service.
- Pronto asked the appellate court to compel the trial court to vacate its denial and withdraw the order permitting substituted service.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the mandamus petition, the response, the reply, and applicable law.
- The court concluded Pronto failed to show it lacked an adequate appellate remedy and therefore denied mandamus relief without reaching the merits.
- The court lifted a previously imposed stay and denied the petition without prejudice under the appellate rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying motion to quash substituted service | Pronto: substituted service was improper and the denial should be vacated via mandamus | Rojas/Mercado: trial court's substituted-service order should stand; appellate review after final judgment or other pleadings provides adequate remedy | Court: Mandamus denied — Pronto has adequate remedy by appeal; no need to reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (mandamus standards and adequate remedy analysis)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standards for showing clear abuse of discretion)
- In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (definition of clear abuse of discretion)
- In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. 2008) (balancing benefits and detriments of mandamus review)
- In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (guidance on mandamus principles over rigid rules)
- Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. 1985) (postures where additional or alternative pleadings affect adequacy of appeal)
- Boreham v. Hartsell, 826 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no writ) (appeal after final judgment can provide adequate remedy)