Summary
holding that "Sagredo has not met his burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief" but that "[a]ny issues presented in this original proceeding may be addressed in the pending appeal"
Summary of this case from Sagredo v. BallOpinion
13-23-00154-CV
08-14-2023
IN RE ISAAC SAGREDO
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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).
On April 21, 2023, relator Isaac Sagredo filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which he asserts that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an order on November 16, 2022, granting a Rule 91a motion for dismissal in favor of the real party in interest Johnathan Ball, and an order on February 17, 2023, severing Sagredo's claims against Ball into a separate lawsuit. Sagredo contends that these two orders are void because the hearings on these orders were held in Cameron County, Texas, rather than in Hidalgo County, Texas, where the cases are pending. Sagredo has also filed a notice of appeal regarding these two orders, and that appeal is currently pending in this Court in our appellate cause number 13-23-00122-CV.
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). However, when "a trial court issues an order 'beyond its jurisdiction,' mandamus relief is appropriate because such an order is void ab initio." In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by Ball, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Sagredo has not met his burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. Any issues presented in this original proceeding may be addressed in the pending appeal.