NUMBER 13-13-00533-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ROBERTO LUNA JR., HILDA GARCIA,
AND REYNALDO LUNA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relators, Roberto Luna Jr., Hilda Garcia, and Reynaldo Luna, filed a petition for
writ of mandamus in the above cause on October 3, 2013, requesting that we direct the
trial court to vacate its order of February 14, 2013 denying relators’ plea to the
jurisdiction and transferring the underlying proceeding to county court. The Court
requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real
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).
party in interest, Lucia Castro, as guardian of the person and estate of Esperanza Luna,
an incapacitated person.
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). Alternatively, where an order is void, the relator does not need to show
that it lacks an adequate appellate remedy and mandamus relief is appropriate. See In
re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding); In re Union
Pac. Resources, Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).
The relator has the burden of establishing the 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). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of
facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,”
and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with
appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” See generally TEX.
R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that relator must furnish an appendix or record
sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the
required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the
record).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus, the response thereto, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators
2
have not met their burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ
of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
24th day of October, 2013.
3