NUMBER 13-14-00159-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE TCPSP CORPORATION
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, TCPSP Corporation, filed a first amended petition for writ of mandamus in
the above cause on March 12, 2014, contending that the trial court abused its discretion
in denying relator’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Mandamus is appropriate when the relator demonstrates that the trial court clearly
abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Reece,
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).
341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); 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).
A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that is so arbitrary
and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails
to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital
Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The
adequacy of an appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of
mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262
(Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Because this balance depends heavily on circumstances,
it must be guided by the analysis of principles rather than the application of simple rules
that treat cases as categories. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex.
2008) (orig. proceeding). We evaluate the benefits and detriments of mandamus review
and consider whether mandamus will preserve important substantive and procedural
rights from impairment or loss. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. In
this regard, mandamus is generally unavailable when a trial court denies summary
judgment. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., 275 S.W.3d at 465–66; see In re United Servs. Auto.
Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 314 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (granting mandamus relief for
the erroneous denial of a motion for summary judgment in extraordinary circumstances
where the relator “endured one trial in a forum that lacked jurisdiction (and then a
subsequent appeal to the court of appeals and [the supreme court]) and [was] facing a
second trial on a claim that [the supreme court has] just held to be barred by limitations”).
2
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to show itself entitled to the relief
sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
18th day of March, 2014.
3