In Re Daisy Fuentes & McCoy Corporation v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 17, 2025
Docket13-25-00325-CV
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
In Re Daisy Fuentes & McCoy Corporation v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

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

In Re Dana Corp.
138 S.W.3d 298 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.
492 S.W.3d 300 (Texas Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.