In Re J&D Claims Services and Mark Stevens v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 26, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00297-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00297-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE J&D CLAIMS SERVICES AND MARK STEVENS

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Tijerina and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1

Relators J&D Claims Services and Mark Stevens filed a petition for writ of

mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion to

dismiss, or alternatively, by denying their motion for joinder of an indispensable party.

See TEX. INS. CODE ANN. § 542A.006 (providing that “an insurer that is a party to the action

may elect to accept whatever liability an agent might have to the claimant for the agent’s

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). acts or omissions related to the claim,” and if so, “no cause of action exists against the

agent related to the claimant’s claim”); TEX. R. CIV. P. 39 (governing the joinder of parties

needed for a “just adjudication”). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that: (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if its “decision is

‘so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law’” or if it

errs “in ‘determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts,’ even when the law

is unsettled.” In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 247 (Tex. 2021) (orig.

proceeding) (cleaned up) (quoting first Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839, then In re Prudential

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135). We determine whether an adequate appellate

remedy exists by weighing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments in a

fact-specific inquiry. In re Acad., Ltd., 625 S.W.3d 19, 32 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding).

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

the response filed by real party in interest German Garcia, and relators’ reply, is of the

opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay

previously imposed in the underlying matter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless

2 vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally

decided.”). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the 26th day of August, 2024.