NUMBER 13-14-00492-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE PENSION ADVISORY GROUP, INC. AND
PAUL D. HINSON
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relators, Pension Advisory Group, Inc. and Paul D. Hinson, filed a petition for writ
of mandamus in the above cause on September 2, 2014 seeking to compel the trial court
to: (1) withdraw its order overruling relators’ objections to and affirming an omnibus order
issued by the special master, and (2) grant a de novo hearing and determination on the
issues addressed by that order. The Court requested and received a response to the
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).
petition for writ of mandamus from the real parties in interest, Fidelity Security Life
Insurance Company and David Smith, who have also filed a motion for sanctions against
relators on grounds that they omitted an obviously important and material fact in the
petition and filed a record that was clearly misleading because of the omission of an
obviously important and material document. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.11. The Court has
also received a reply to the response from relators.
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus
relief and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003)
(orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response thereto, and the reply, is of the opinion that relators have not shown
themselves entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is
DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We have carefully considered the real parties’
motion for sanctions; however, the motion for sanctions is likewise DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
16th day of September, 2014.
2