In Re Ayleen Esparza v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 11, 2024
• Docket: 01-24-00269-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 11, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00269-CV ——————————— IN RE AYLEEN ESPARZA, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In April 2023, Relator Ayleen Esparza served her sworn responses to Real

Party in Interest Johnson Fence and Masonry, LLC’s Requests for Admissions

denying certain requests. In February 2024, after deposing Relator, Real Party

moved to sanction Relator for failure to admit “the truth of various matters . . . and

[for] her abuse of the discovery process in resisting discovery.” Relator did not

respond to the Motion for Sanctions or appear at the March 18, 2024 hearing on the motion.1 On March 18, 2024, the trial court signed an order granting the Motion for

Sanctions, ordering Relator to pay $35,202.45 within fourteen days of the order, and

noting that failure to pay by the due date would result in a penalty of $500 per day

and the potential imposition of additional sanctions. The fourteen days expired on

April 1, 2024.

On April 8, 2024, Relator filed an Application for Writ of Mandamus

requesting we direct the trial court to “vacate the award of sanctions” granted on

March 18, 2024.2 Relator also filed an Emergency Motion requesting we stay the

trial court’s order pending adjudication of her writ. The next day, Real Party filed a

response opposing the application and request for emergency stay.

1 In its application, Relator states that no record was made of the March 18, 2024 sanctions hearing. 2 The underlying case is Johnson Fence and Masonry, LLC v. Stephen Anthony Walsh, Teresita Tezeno a/k/a Teresita N. Valdez, JBlake Construction LLC, S.O.A. Construction Services, LLC, Amados Tractors Inc., Olver Amado Cureno-Nava, Fernando Ivan Cureno, Amado Cureno, Ayleen Estefania Esparza, Cause No. 2022- 75023, in the 11th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Kristen Hawkins presiding.

2 We deny Relator’s Application for Writ of Mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a); In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1999) (“A party’s right to

mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for some action and a refusal

of that request.”); In re Jindal Saw Ltd., 264 S.W.3d 755, 767 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding) (pet. granted) (holding that failure to advance

arguments at trial level prevented relators from asserting such arguments on

mandamus); In re Bank of America, No. 01–02–00867–CV, 2003 WL 22310800, at

*2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 9, 2003, orig. proceeding) (“[I]t would be

hard to conclude, without circumstances that were highly unusual or that made a trial

court’s ruling void, that a trial court could abuse its discretion in making a ruling for

a reason that was never presented to the court.”).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.