NUMBER 13-18-00060-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE FEDERAL CORPORATION
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras
Relator Federal Corporation filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court
arguing that respondent, the Honorable Mario E. Ramirez Jr., presiding judge of the
332nd Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, erred by denying relator’s special
appearance, under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a, in trial court cause number C-
8211-14-F.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300,
302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a
clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus
Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator
bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492
S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
Under section 51.014(a)(7) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a party
may appeal an interlocutory order that “grants or denies the special appearance of a
defendant under Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, except in a suit brought
under the Family Code.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(7) (West,
Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). The challenged order denied relator’s special
appearance under Rule 120a, and the underlying suit was not brought under the family
code. See id. Accordingly, relator has not shown that it lacks an adequate remedy by
appeal.
Having fully considered relator’s petition, this Court is of the opinion that relator is
not entitled to the relief sought for the foregoing reason. Accordingly, the petition for writ
of mandamus is DENIED. Any pending motions are denied as moot.
DORI CONTRERAS
Justice
Delivered and filed the
25th day of January, 2018.
2