From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Ortega

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Feb 15, 2018
NUMBER 13-18-00002-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 15, 2018)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-18-00002-CV

02-15-2018

IN RE PABLO SERGIO ORTEGA AND JULIA ORTEGA


On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

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).

Relators Pablo Sergio Ortega and Julia Ortega filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause seeking to compel the county court to dismiss the underlying case regarding enforcement of a restrictive covenant. By two issues, relators assert that the county court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal filed from the justice of the peace court by real party in interest Omar Jasso because: (1) Jasso's appeal was not filed timely, and (2) the county court did not rule on Jasso's attempted appeal within seventy-five days. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(c) (providing that a motion for new trial is overruled by operation of law if not determined by written order within seventy-five days after the judgment was signed); id. R. 506.1 (stating that a party may appeal a judgment from justice court by "filing a bond, making a cash deposit, or filing a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs" with the justice court within twenty-one days after the judgment is signed or the motion to reinstate, motion to set aside, or motion for new trial, if any, is denied").

This Court previously dismissed a similar petition for writ of mandamus filed by relators without prejudice. See In re Ortega, No. 13-17-00618-CV, 2017 WL 6348151, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 13, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show that the underlying order is void or that the order represents a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. See In re Nationwide Ins. Co., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by Jasso, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice Delivered and filed the 15th day of February, 2018.


Summaries of

In re Ortega

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Feb 15, 2018
NUMBER 13-18-00002-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 15, 2018)
Case details for

In re Ortega

Case Details

Full title:IN RE PABLO SERGIO ORTEGA AND JULIA ORTEGA

Court:COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Feb 15, 2018

Citations

NUMBER 13-18-00002-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 15, 2018)