NUMBER 13-08-567-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam (1)
Relator, Christine Franks, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on October 3, 2008. The Court requested a response from the real parties in interest, and one was received from real party in interest, Carol Thompson.
Mandamus relief is proper only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding). This burden is a heavy one. See In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown herself entitled to the relief sought. See Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135-36; see also LeJune v. Pow-Sang, No. 01-04-00843-CV, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2740, at *10-17 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.), disapproved on other grounds by In re Lynd Co., 195 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. 2006). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this 10th day of November, 2008.
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).