NUMBER 13-18-00200-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE PLAINSCAPITAL BANK
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1
By petition for writ of mandamus, relator PlainsCapital Bank (PlainsCapital)
contends that the Honorable Linda Reyna Yañez erred in overruling its objection to her
assignment to the underlying case, and the Honorable Missy Medary, Presiding Judge of
the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region, abused her discretion by refusing to appoint a
new judge to the case. See generally TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 74.053, 74.056 (West,
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in
any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus in part and
dismiss it in part.
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).
An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or
is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford
Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of
an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the
detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
In terms of review by mandamus, when an assigned judge overrules a timely
objection to the assignment, the judge’s subsequent orders are void and the objecting
party is entitled to mandamus relief. In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698, 701 (Tex. 2001) (orig.
proceeding). The objecting party need not demonstrate that it lacks an adequate remedy
by appeal. Dunn v. Street, 938 S.W.2d 33, 34 (Tex. 1997) (orig. proceeding); Flores v.
Banner, 932 S.W.2d 500, 501 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding); In re Flores, 53 S.W.3d 428,
430 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, orig. proceeding).
2
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response filed by the real party in interest, Ricardo Diaz Miranda, and the applicable
law, is of the opinion that PlainsCapital has not met its burden to obtain mandamus relief
against the assigned judge. See generally TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.053; In re Canales,
52 S.W.3d at 702–04; In re S.N.Z., 421 S.W.3d 899, 907–08 (Tex. App—Dallas 2014,
pet. denied). And, to the extent that PlainsCapital seeks relief against the Presiding Judge
of the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region, we lack jurisdiction to consider its claims. In
re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668, 671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding); In re Lopez,
286 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]);
In re Hettler, 110 S.W.3d 152, 154 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding).
Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus, in part, as to the claims against
the assigned judge, and we DISMISS the petition for writ of mandamus, in part, as to the
claims against the regional administrative judge.
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Delivered and filed the
17th day of April, 2018.
3