In Re 7-Eleven, Inc. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 26, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00628-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00628-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE 7-ELEVEN, INC.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 229TH DISTRICT COURT OF STARR COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator 7-Eleven, Inc. complains that the trial court

abused its discretion by denying relator’s motions for leave to designate responsible third

parties. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 33.004. The petition arises from trial

court cause number DC-24-64 in the 229th District Court of Starr County, Texas.

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). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on

appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding). “The

relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.,

492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827

S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). In addition to other requirements, the

relator must provide an appendix and record sufficient to support the claim for relief. See

generally TEX R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7(a).

Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the

courts of appeals, and states that the courts of appeals “shall have such other jurisdiction,

original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a). Section

22.221 of the Texas Government Code provides the main source of original jurisdiction

for the intermediate courts of appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; In re Cook,

394 S.W.3d 668, 671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding). In pertinent part, this

section provides that an intermediate appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus

against specified judges in its district and “all other writs necessary to enforce the

jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the limited record provided, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this original

proceeding. Relator seeks mandamus relief against the judge of the 229th District Court

of Starr County. However, Starr County is not located within the geographic district for the

Thirteenth Court of Appeals but is instead located within the geographic district for the

2 Fourth Court of Appeals. See id. § 22.201(e) (delineating the counties comprising the

Fourth Court of Appeals District); id. § 22.201(n) (delineating the counties comprising the

Thirteenth Court of Appeals District). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ against the

judge of the 229th District Court of Starr County. See id. § 22.221(b). Additionally, relator

does not contend that the writ is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of this Court, and

our review does not indicate otherwise. See id. § 22.221(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the

petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

JENNY CRON Justice

Delivered and filed on the 26th day of November, 2025.