in Re Bayshore Energy TX LLC and Atlas Operating LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 26, 2023
• Docket: 13-22-00594-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-22-00594-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE BAYSHORE ENERGY TX LLC AND ATLAS OPERATING LLC

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

Relators Bayshore Energy TX LLC and Atlas Operating LLC filed a petition for writ

of mandamus through which they assert that the trial court abused its discretion in

granting a motion to expunge a lis pendens filed by real party in interest, VDA Solar Texas

1 LLC (VDA).

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. 47.1 (requiring the appellate courts to “hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition”); 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 on 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). “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, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

Mandamus may be appropriate to consider rulings regarding lis pendens. See

Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam);

see, e.g., In re Gaudet, 625 S.W.3d 887, 891 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding

[mand. denied]) (“It is well settled that mandamus is the appropriate remedy when issues

arise concerning the propriety of a notice of lis pendens.”); In re I-10 Poorman Invs., Inc.,

549 S.W.3d 614, 616 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (“In disputes

concerning notices of lis pendens, mandamus is the appropriate remedy and a showing

of adequate remedy by appeal is unnecessary.”).

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

the response filed by VDA, the reply thereto filed by relators, and the applicable law, is of 2 the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny

the petition for writ of mandamus.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 26th day of January, 2023.