in Re: Armando Garcia Cardenas, Marvelia Garcia Del Fierro and Blanca Estella Garcia Del Fierro

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 6, 2011
• Docket: 13-10-00674-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-10-00674-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ARMANDO GARCIA CARDENAS, MARVELIA GARCIA DEL FIERRO, AND BLANCA ESTELLA GARCIA DEL FIERRO

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza[1]

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam [2]

By petition for writ of mandamus, Armando Garcia Cardenas, Marvelia Garcia Del Fierro, and Blanca Estella Garcia Del Fierro, contend that the trial court erred in refusing to grant their plea to the jurisdiction and in allowing specified discovery to proceed during the abatement of the underlying cause.  The Court requested that the real parties in interest file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus, and a response was duly filed on January 4, 2011, by Armando Garcia, Jr.  

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that issues only if the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.  In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding).  It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992); In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198-99 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3.  The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought.  Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

                                                                                                PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

6th day of January, 2011.

---

[1] The Honorable Linda Reyna Yañez, former Justice of this Court, did not participate in this opinion because her term of office expired on December 31, 2010, and she was replaced on panel by Justice Dori Contreras Garza in accordance with the appellate rules.  See Tex. R. App. P. 41.1(a).

[2] 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.”); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).