in Re Rojo Entertainment, LLC and Rotu Investments, LLC, 13-21-00440-CV

Relators Arch Funding, LLC, Rojo Entertainment, LLC, and Rotu Investments, LLC sought writs of mandamus challenging a trial-court order that set aside a foreclosure sale in cause CL-21-1991-F (Hidalgo County, Ct. at Law No. 6).
The relators argued the trial court abused its discretion and that mandamus was appropriate because they had no adequate remedy by appeal.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the mandamus petitions, the real parties’ responses (Jose Pedraza Jr. and JP Lynx Capital Developments, LLC), and the record and concluded the relators did not meet their burden for mandamus relief.
The court emphasized the relators failed to provide a complete record (a reporter’s record was missing), and appellate mandamus relief cannot resolve disputed facts or credibility determinations reserved for the trial court.
The order under review appeared preliminary/conditional and contemplated further proceedings; mandamus is generally inappropriate for such nonfinal rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether relators established entitlement to mandamus by showing trial-court abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy	Trial court erred in setting aside the foreclosure sale; mandamus is proper because appeal is inadequate	Trial court’s decision depended on factual findings and credibility; relators have not met the heavy mandamus burden	Denied — relators failed to meet the two-part mandamus burden
Whether the record before the appellate court was sufficient	Record sufficed to show legal error	Record incomplete; missing reporter’s record prevents relief	Denied — relators bore burden to supply a complete record and did not do so
Whether appellate court may resolve factual disputes and credibility issues in mandamus	Issues are legal and suitable for mandamus	Factual disputes and credibility are for the trial court; appellate mandamus cannot resolve them	Denied — appellate courts cannot resolve disputed facts or credibility on mandamus review
Whether mandamus is available for preliminary, conditional, or incomplete trial-court rulings	Order was final enough to warrant mandamus	Order appears preliminary and contemplates further proceedings, so mandamus is improper	Denied — mandamus not appropriate for preliminary/conditional rulings

In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. 2021) (mandamus is extraordinary and discretionary)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus standards; relator’s burden)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (relator must prove entitlement to mandamus and supply sufficient record)
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (relator bears burden of proving requirements for mandamus)
In re Woodfill, 470 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding) (appellate courts may not resolve factual disputes in mandamus)
In re Angelini, 186 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus does not decide fact issues reserved for trial court)
In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020) (orig. proceeding) (relator’s duty to provide complete record)
In re Walmart, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus denied for preliminary/incomplete rulings)