in Re State Farm LLoyds, Richard Lee Wallis, Richard Freymann, and Mark Hughes

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 2, 2014
Docket13-14-00471-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re State Farm LLoyds, Richard Lee Wallis, Richard Freymann, and Mark Hughes (in Re State Farm LLoyds, Richard Lee Wallis, Richard Freymann, and Mark Hughes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re State Farm LLoyds, Richard Lee Wallis, Richard Freymann, and Mark Hughes, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-14-00471-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS, RICHARD LEE WALLIS, RICHARD FREYMANN, AND MARK HUGHES

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria Memorandum Opinion1 Per Curiam

Relators, State Farm Lloyds, Richard Lee Wallis, Richard Freymann, and Mark

Hughes, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct

respondent, the Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna, Presiding Judge of the 206th District

Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, to withdraw her order denying relators’ verified plea in

abatement and to enter an order abating the suit for damages brought against relators by

the real party in interest, Ascencion Martinez, until sixty days after he provides relators

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.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). with a notice letter for his claim stating the specific, separate amounts for the claimed

damages and attorney’s fees. See TEX. INS. CODE ANN. § 541.154 (West, Westlaw

through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Prior Notice of Action”); id. § 541.155 (West, Westlaw through

2013 3d C.S.) (“Abatement”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1 (“Commencement” of Original

Proceedings). In addition, relators request that this Court issue immediate temporary

relief staying respondent’s order denying the plea in abatement. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.10 (“Temporary Relief”).

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

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be

denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re State Farm Lloyds, Richard

Freymann, and Nathan Burris, No. 13-14-00347-CV, 2014 WL _____ (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi Aug. 27, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), available at

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/case.aspx?cn=13-14-00348-CV. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES the petition for writ of mandamus and request for immediate temporary relief.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 2nd day of September, 2014.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 541.154
Texas IN § 541.154

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re State Farm LLoyds, Richard Lee Wallis, Richard Freymann, and Mark Hughes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-state-farm-lloyds-richard-lee-wallis-richard-texapp-2014.