In Re Brothers Produce of Dallas, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; Brothers Produce of Austin, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; And Andres Gonzalez Hernandez v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 5, 2025
Docket13-25-00025-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re Brothers Produce of Dallas, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; Brothers Produce of Austin, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; And Andres Gonzalez Hernandez v. the State of Texas (In Re Brothers Produce of Dallas, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; Brothers Produce of Austin, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; And Andres Gonzalez Hernandez v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Brothers Produce of Dallas, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; Brothers Produce of Austin, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; And Andres Gonzalez Hernandez v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00025-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE BROTHERS PRODUCE OF DALLAS, INC. D/B/A BROTHERS FOOD SERVICE; BROTHERS PRODUCE OF AUSTIN, INC. D/B/A BROTHERS FOOD SERVICE; AND ANDRES GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

Relators Brothers Produce of Dallas, Inc. d/b/a Brothers Food Service; Brothers

Produce of Austin, Inc. d/b/a Brothers Food Service; and Andres Gonzalez Hernandez

filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by

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). granting a motion to consolidate. However, relators have now filed an unopposed motion

for dismissal of their petition for writ of mandamus as moot because the trial court has

vacated the consolidation order at issue in this original proceeding.

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

the unopposed motion for dismissal, and the documents on file, is of the opinion that the

unopposed motion for dismissal should be granted. See In re Contract Freighters, Inc.,

646 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Heckman v. Williamson

County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d

732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we grant the unopposed motion for

dismissal, and we dismiss this original proceeding as moot.

JON WEST Justice

Delivered and filed on the 5th day of May, 2025.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re Brothers Produce of Dallas, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; Brothers Produce of Austin, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; And Andres Gonzalez Hernandez v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brothers-produce-of-dallas-inc-dba-brothers-food-service-texapp-2025.