In Re Daisy Fuentes & McCoy Corporation v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Daisy Fuentes & McCoy Corporation v. the State of Texas (In Re Daisy Fuentes & McCoy Corporation 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.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-25-00325-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE DAISY FUENTES AND MCCOY CORPORATION
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1
By petition for writ of mandamus, relators Daisy Fuentes and McCoy Corporation
contend that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering them to produce “all primary
and excess policies of insurance that may provide coverage in this case.” Relators have
also filed a motion for emergency stay of the trial court’s order pending the resolution of
this original proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10.
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). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court
clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on
appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (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 v. Packer, 827
S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain
relief. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(f); 194.2(b)(7); In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W.3d 298, 304
(Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus and the motion for emergency stay.
L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice
Delivered and filed on the 17th day of June, 2025.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Daisy Fuentes & McCoy Corporation v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daisy-fuentes-mccoy-corporation-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.