In Re Key Allegro Canal & Property Owners Association F/K/A Key Allegro Canal Owners Association v. the State of Texas

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00636-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE KEY ALLEGRO CANAL & PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION F/K/A KEY ALLEGRO CANAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Key Allegro Canal & Property Owners

Association f/k/a Key Allegro Canal Owners Association (Key Allegro) asserts that the

trial court abused its discretion by ordering Myatt Hancock (1) to be deposed both

individually and as a corporate representative; and (2) to provide testimony as a corporate

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). representative on topics that do not comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure

199.2(b)(1). See TEX. R. CIV. P. 199.2(b)(1).

Mandamus is intended for use in circumstances “involving manifest and urgent

necessity.” Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure

Fund, LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 641 (Tex. 2021) (quoting Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). 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). In this regard, “[a] discovery order that compels production beyond the

rules of procedure is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy.”

In re Kuraray Am., Inc., 656 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

(quoting In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam)).

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

the response filed by the real parties in interest, relator’s reply, and the applicable law,

is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain mandamus relief. See Elec.

Reliability Council of Tex., Inc., 619 S.W.3d at 641. Accordingly, we lift the stay

previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10 (“Unless vacated or modified,

an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). We deny

the petition for writ of mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the 6th day of February, 2025.