In Re Garda CL Southwest, Inc. v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 19, 2024
Docket13-24-00314-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re Garda CL Southwest, Inc. v. the State of Texas (In Re Garda CL Southwest, Inc. 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 Garda CL Southwest, Inc. v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00314-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE GARDA CL SOUTHWEST, INC.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Tijerina and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

Relator Garda CL Southwest, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting

that the trial court abused its discretion by denying relator’s motion to designate a

responsible third party. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 33.004. By order

previously issued in this original proceeding, we requested the real party in interest, Juan

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. 47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”); id. R. 47.4 (explaining the differences between opinions and memorandum opinions). Flores, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus, and such response has

been duly filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. However, relator has now filed a

motion to withdraw its petition for writ of mandamus on grounds that the underlying lawsuit

settled in mediation on July 17, 2024. Relator asserts that there are no pending matters

before the trial court and, therefore, its petition for mandamus is moot.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the response, and the motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that this matter should be

dismissed. See In re Cont. Freighters, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Tex. 2022) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex.

2012); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig.

proceeding). Accordingly, we grant relator’s motion to dismiss, and we dismiss this

original proceeding as moot.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Delivered and filed on the 19th day of July, 2024.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re Garda CL Southwest, Inc. v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-garda-cl-southwest-inc-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.