In Re Jason Gutierrez D/B/A One Stop Construction v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00330-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00330-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE JASON GUTIERREZ D/B/A ONE STOP CONSTRUCTION

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Jason Gutierrez d/b/a One Stop

Construction seeks to compel the trial court to set aside an order granting summary

judgment in favor of real party interest J&S Lagoons RV, LLC, on grounds that the trial

court failed to comply with its ministerial duty to correctly apply the provisions of Texas

Rule of Civil Procedure 185. See TEX. R. CIV. P 185 (governing suits on account); see

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). also id. R. 93(10) (requiring the verification of a pleading regarding the denial of an

account).

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 trial court abuses its discretion when

it acts without reference to guiding rules or principles or in an arbitrary or unreasonable

manner. In re Acad., Ltd., 625 S.W.3d 19, 25 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding). An error of

law or the erroneous application of the law to the facts is an abuse of discretion. In re Ill.

Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d at 835. To determine whether an appellate remedy is adequate,

we balance or weigh the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re State

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 712 S.W.3d 53, 59 (Tex. 2025) (orig. proceeding). “No specific

definition captures the essence of or circumscribes what comprises an ‘adequate’

remedy; the term is ‘a proxy for the careful balance of jurisprudential considerations,’ and

its meaning ‘depends heavily on the circumstances presented.’” In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d

836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Prudential Ins. Co. of

Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136–37 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)).

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

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JON WEST Justice

Delivered and filed on the 26th day of June, 2025.