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

Court of Appeals of Texas

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

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 30, 2025·No. 01-25-00875-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 30, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.

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

Opinion issued October 30, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.

In Re Frederick H. Schrader and Constellation Brands, Inc. v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

In Re Frederick H. Schrader and Constellation Brands, Inc. v. the State of Texas (In Re Frederick H. Schrader and Constellation Brands, Inc. v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.