Case Information
*1 NUMBER 13-25-00545-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE EVE ESCOBEDO
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1
By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Eve Escobedo asserts that the trial court’s default judgment is void because she failed to receive valid notice of the date for trial.
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, *2 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Ordinarily, 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). However, when “a trial court issues an order ‘beyond its jurisdiction,’ mandamus relief is appropriate 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)). In such circumstances, the relator need not show 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 limited record provided, 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.
JON WEST Justice Delivered and filed on the
31st day of October, 2025.
2
[1] See T EX . R. A PP . 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).