NUMBER 13-08-567-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE CHRISTINE FRANKS
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
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
1
See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinio n but
is not required to do so.”); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).
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.
2