NUMBER 13-10-00674-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ARMANDO GARCIA CARDENAS, MARVELIA GARCIA DEL
FIERRO, AND BLANCA ESTELLA GARCIA DEL FIERRO
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza1
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 2
By petition for writ of mandamus, Armando Garcia Cardenas, Marvelia Garcia
Del Fierro, and Blanca Estella Garcia Del Fierro, contend that the trial court erred in
refusing to grant their plea to the jurisdiction and in allowing specified discovery to
proceed during the abatement of the underlying cause. The Court requested that the
1
The Honorable Linda Reyna Yañez, former Justice of this Court, did not participate in this opinion
because her term of office expired on December 31, 2010, and she was replaced on panel by Justice Dori Contreras
Garza in accordance with the appellate rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.1(a).
2
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).
real parties in interest file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus, and a
response was duly filed on January 4, 2011, by Armando Garcia, Jr.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that issues only if the trial court clearly
abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Sw. Bell
Tel. Co., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). It is the relator’s burden
to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief.
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992); In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187
S.W.3d 197, 198-99 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus and the response thereto, 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).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
6th day of January, 2011.
2