In Re Cottonwood Development Corporation v. the State of Texas

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00107-CV

In re Cottonwood Development Corporation

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Cottonwood Development Corporation has filed a petition for writ of

mandamus complaining that a March 7, 2023 foreclosure sale of certain property is unlawful and

the trial court abused its discretion when it issued its Final Judgment and Order of Foreclosure

and other related orders. However, those orders are the subject of a related appeal pending

before this Court, Cottonwood Development Corporation v. Preston Hollow Capital, LLC et al.,

cause number 03-22-00735-CV, and Relator has not demonstrated it lacks an adequate remedy

by appeal to challenge those orders or otherwise stay their enforcement pending resolution of

that appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding) (“The other requirement [Relator] must meet [for mandamus relief] is to show that it

has no adequate remedy by appeal.”); see also Tex. R. App. P. 24 (Suspension of Enforcement of

Judgment Pending Appeal in Civil Cases); id. R. 24.4(a)(4) (authorizing appellate court to

review “the determination whether to permit suspension of enforcement” after motion by a party); Blessing v. Balderas, No. 03-22-00613-CV, 2022 WL 6258612, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Austin Oct. 7, 2022, no pet.).

Accordingly, we deny this petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App.

P. 52.8(a). 1

__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Filed: February 27, 2023

1Relator also presented a motion for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus. Leave is not required to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in the courts of appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 52 Notes and Comments. Relator’s motion is therefore dismissed as moot.