In Re Richard Villarreal and Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling, LLC v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 8, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00183-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00183-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE RICHARD VILLARREAL AND HIDALGO ROOFING & REMODELING, LLC

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

Relators Richard Villarreal and Hidalgo Roofing & Remodeling, LLC filed a petition

for writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by denying

relators’ motion to dismiss causes of action filed by real party in interest Maria E. Longoria

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). as “baseless” under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. See generally TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.

“Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy available only on a showing that (1)

the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) 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 re Liberty Cnty. Mut. Ins., 679 S.W.3d 170, 174 (Tex. 2023) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief may be appropriate if the trial court abuses its

discretion by denying a Rule 91a motion to dismiss. See In re Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut.

Ins., 621 S.W.3d 261, 266 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Essex Ins., 450 S.W.3d

524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

Rule 91a provides that “a party may move to dismiss a cause of action on the

grounds that it has no basis in law or fact.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.1; see In re First Resrv.

Mgmt., L.P., 671 S.W.3d 653, 659 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding). “A cause of action has

no basis in law if the allegations, taken as true, together with inferences reasonably drawn

from them, do not entitle the claimant to the relief sought.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.1; see In re

Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins., 621 S.W.3d at 266. “A cause of action has no basis in fact

if no reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.1; San

Jacinto River Auth. v. Medina, 627 S.W.3d 618, 628 (Tex. 2021). We perform a de novo

review of the trial court’s ruling on a Rule 91a motion. Bethel v. Quilling, Selander,

Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651, 654 (Tex. 2020); City of Dall. v.

Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam).

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

the response filed by Longoria, relators’ reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion

that relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a; Longhorn

Creek Ltd. v. Gardens of Connemara Ltd., 686 S.W.3d 418, 425–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2024, pet. filed); Long v. Long, 681 S.W.3d 805, 816–18 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2023, no

pet.); In re Shire PLC, 633 S.W.3d 1, 18–27 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2021, orig.

proceeding [mand. denied]); Reaves v. City of Corpus Christi, 518 S.W.3d 594, 608–12

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2017, no pet.); see also Parker v. Ohio Dev., LLC,

No. 04-23-00069-CV, 2024 WL 1864756, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 30, 2024,

no pet. h.) (mem. op). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 8th day of May, 2024.