In Re Frederick H. Schrader and Constellation Brands, Inc. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00875-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 30, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00875-CV ——————————— IN RE FREDERICK H. SCHRADER AND CONSTELLATION BRANDS, INC., Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Frederick H. Schrader and Constellation Brands, Inc., filed a petition

for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s “oral[] indicat[ion] [that] it would

deny [relators’] requests to abate, stay, and not issue a continuance of the November

5[, 2025] trial date.”1 Relators’ petition requested that the Court “grant a writ of

1 The underlying case is Robert M. (Randy) Roach, Jr. v. Frederick H. Schrader and Constellation Brands, Inc., Cause No. 2018-59845, in the 190th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Beau Miller presiding. mandamus and direct [the trial court] to abate and stay its case until final judgment

in the United States District Court for [the] Northern [District of] California, and to

apply the results of that judgment to the instant case before moving forward with

any trial on the merits.”2

In connection with their petition for writ of mandamus, on October 21, 2025,

relators filed a “Motion for Emergency Stay of Trial Court Proceedings.” In their

motion, relators requested that the Court grant an emergency stay, “necessary to

prevent irreparable harm” to relators, as trial of the underlying suit was scheduled

for November 5, 2025. Real party in interest, Robert M. (Randy) Roach, filed a

response in opposition to relators’ motion for emergency stay of trial court

proceedings.

We conclude that relators have failed to establish that they are entitled to

mandamus relief. We dismiss any pending motions, including relators’ “Motion for

Emergency Stay of Trial Court Proceedings,” as moot.

2 Relators filed their petition for writ of mandamus on October 20, 2025. As noted above, in their petition, relators challenged the trial court’s “oral[] indicat[ion]” that it would deny relators’ requests for abatement, stay, and/or continuance. At the time of filing their petition, the trial court had not entered any order denying the relief requested by relators. However, in response to relators’ “Motion for Emergency Stay of Trial Court Proceedings,” real party in interest, Robert M. (Randy) Roach, Jr., attached the trial court’s “Order Denying [Relators’] Motion to Stay and Supplement to [Relators’] Pleas to the Jurisdiction, and Renewed Pleas in Abatement and [Relators’] Verified Supplement to [Relators’] Motion to Stay, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Continuance,” signed on October 20, 2025.

2 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.