In Re Lone Star Ports Enterprises, LLC, Redfish Bay Properties, LLC, and Harbor Island Properties, LLC v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00276-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00276-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE LONE STAR PORTS ENTERPRISES, LLC, REDFISH BAY PROPERTIES, LLC, AND HARBOR ISLAND PROPERTIES, LLC

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

By petition for writ of mandamus, relators Lone Star Ports Enterprises, LLC,

Redfish Bay Properties, LLC, and Harbor Island Properties, LLC assert that the trial court 2

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). 2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 2024DCV-0045-C in the 94th District

Court of Nueces County, Texas, and the respondent is the Honorable Bobby Galvan. See id. R. 52.2. However, the real parties in interest, Redfish Bay Terminals, Inc., Canada Project Holdings Inc., Axis abused its discretion by failing (1) to strike petitions in intervention, and (2) to grant a plea

in abatement based on dominant jurisdiction.

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). Ordinarily, 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).

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

the responses filed by the real parties in interest, the reply, and the applicable law, is of

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

stay previously imposed in this case, and we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JON WEST Justice

Delivered and filed on the 22nd day of October, 2025.

Midstream Holdings, LLC, and Berry GP, Inc., have filed an advisory with the Court stating that Judge Galvan has recused himself from further proceedings, and the case has been reassigned to the Honorable Mark Woerner. When a trial judge recuses after an original proceeding has been filed, as here, “appellate courts should either deny the petition for mandamus . . . or abate the proceedings pending consideration of the challenged order by the new trial judge.” In re Blevins, 480 S.W.3d 542, 544 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). “Because mandamus is a discretionary writ, the appellate court involved should exercise discretion to determine which of the two approaches affords the better and more efficient manner of resolving the dispute.” Id. In our discretion, and having fully reviewed the pleadings and record, we conclude that abatement is unnecessary. See id. 2