Case Information
*1 NUMBER 13-22-00044-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE MURRAY THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria 1
In this original proceeding, relator Murray Thompson Construction Co., Inc. seeks to compel the trial court to dismiss the underlying case for want of prosecution. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 165a.
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). 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). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts with disregard for guiding rules or principles or when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d at 840. We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Acad., Ltd. , 625 S.W.3d 19, 25 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Essex Ins. , 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d at 136.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by the real parties in interest, Priscilla Aguilar-Villegas and Maria Irma Juarez, as co-administrators of the estate of Ruben Villegas and on behalf of the estate of Ruben Villegas, the reply filed by relator, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not established its right to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Delivered and filed on the
24th day of February, 2022.
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).