In Re Aviserv, LLC v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 5, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00113-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00113-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE AVISERV, LLC

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides 1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Aviserv, LLC contends that the trial court

abused its discretion by failing to rule on dual motions for summary judgment regarding

whether improvements constructed on leased property owned by the City of Harlingen,

located at Valley International Airport in Cameron County, Texas, are exempt from the

payment of ad valorem taxes. We deny relief without prejudice.

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). 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,

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).

In order to obtain mandamus relief for the trial court’s refusal to rule on a motion,

the relator must establish that: (1) the motion was properly filed and the trial court had a

legal duty to rule; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court

failed or refused to rule within a reasonable time. See In re GTG Sols., Inc., 642 S.W.3d

47, 49 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding); In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320, 321

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Greater

McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d 743, 748 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg

2014, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001,

orig. proceeding). We determine whether a reasonable time has elapsed by examining

several criteria, including the seriousness and complexity of the pending motion, the trial

court’s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act, the state of the court’s

docket, and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which must be

addressed first. See In re GTG Sols., Inc., 642 S.W.3d at 50; In re Greater McAllen Star

Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d at 748–49; In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228–29.

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

the response filed by real party in interest Richard Molina, Chief Appraiser of the Cameron

County Appraisal District, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met

its burden to obtain relief. The pending motions are complex; the parties have filed

multiple amended and supplemental pleadings and motions relevant to the requested

relief; and our review of the trial court’s docket reveals that the parties have filed other

pleadings relating to discovery and jurisdiction. See In re GTG Sols., Inc., 642 S.W.3d at

50; In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d at 748–49; In re Chavez, 62

S.W.3d at 228–29. We are confident that the trial court will address these matters

promptly. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice.

GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice

Delivered and filed on the 5th day of April, 2024.