NUMBER 13-14-00243-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE O.E. INVESTMENTS, LTD. AND OTHAL E. BRAND JR.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relators, O.E. Investments, Ltd. and Othal E. Brand Jr., filed a petition for writ of
mandamus and an emergency motion to stay the trial court proceedings in the above
cause on April 29, 2014. Relators seek to compel the trial court to withdraw its December
23, 2013 order disqualifying their counsel, Ronald G. Hole, from further participation in
the case. By emergency motion, relators seek to stay all trial court proceedings, including
the docket control conference originally set for April 11, 2014 and reset for May 1, 2014.
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).
According to the emergency motion, relators had previously sought a stay of the
proceedings from the trial court, but the trial court only partially granted the stay because,
according to its March 21, 2014 order, to “grant the abatement as requested will only
unduly and further delay the case.”
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. 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) (orig.
proceeding). Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is controlled
largely by equitable principles. See In re Int'l Profit Associates, Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672, 676
(Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding); In re Users Sys. Servs., Inc., 22 S.W.3d 331, 337 (Tex.
1999) (orig. proceeding); Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex.
1993). One such principle is that equity aids the diligent and not those who slumber on
their rights. See In re Int'l Profit Associates, Inc., 274 S.W.3d at 676.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain
mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion
to stay are DENIED. See id. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
30th day of April, 2014.
2