In Re Gulf Coast Flooring & Services, Inc. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 3, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00057-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 3, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00057-CV ——————————— IN RE GULF COAST FLOORING & SERVICES, LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Gulf Coast Flooring & Services, LLC, filed a petition for writ of

mandamus challenging the trial court’s December 18, 2024 order denying its “Plea

to the Jurisdiction and Plea in Abatement.”1 Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

argued that the trial court erred in denying its plea to the jurisdiction and plea in

1 The underlying case is In the Estate of Alexander Uzcategui, Deceased, Cause No. 507137-401, in Probate Court No. 4 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable James Horwitz presiding. abatement because real parties in interest Erix J. Medina, as Representative of the

Estate of Alexander Uzcategui, Deceased, Kerany Echeto Silva, Individually and as

Next Friend of Alleged Minors, A.U.E. and A.J.U.E., Alexandra Uzcategui Echeto,

Gabriela Uzcategui Echeto, Yanella Uzcategui Echeto, and Maria Canizalez de

Uzcategui failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before the Texas Department

of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation, which relator argued has

exclusive jurisdiction to make the initial determination of employee versus

independent contractor status, prior to asserting their claims and causes of action in

the probate court.

On June 13, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court decided Univ. of Tex. Rio Grande

Valley v. Oteka, — S.W.3d —, 2025 WL 1668315 (Tex. 2025), which involved the

denial of a plea to the jurisdiction under circumstances similar to those presented in

the mandamus petition presented to this Court by relator. Real parties in interest

contend that Oteka forecloses mandamus relief; relator, however, draws a different

conclusion from Oteka.

We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, but without prejudice to

relator’s right to request the probate court to reconsider its ruling in light of the Texas

Supreme Court’s decision in Oteka. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.