NUMBER 13-19-00016-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE MSW CORPUS CHRISTI LANDFILL, LTD.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1
Relator MSW Corpus Christi Landfill, Ltd. filed a petition for writ of mandamus
contending that the trial court abused its discretion, leaving relator without an adequate
appellate remedy, by expunging relator’s notice of lis pendens. See TEX. PROP. CODE
ANN. § 12.071 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Relator also filed an expedited
motion for emergency relief requesting this Court to stay the underlying proceedings
pending resolution of its petition for writ of mandamus. By order issued on January 10,
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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id.
R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2019, we granted relator’s motion for emergency relief and ordered the real parties in
interest, Gulley-Hurst LLC, Robert Bryan Gulley, and Philip R. Hurst, to file a response
to the petition for writ of mandamus. The real parties in interest have now filed their
response to the petition and relator has filed a reply thereto.
To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying
order is void or a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists.
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Under this
standard of review, we defer to the trial court’s factual determinations that are supported
by evidence, but we review the trial court’s legal determinations de novo. See In re Labatt
Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. 2009) (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, 494
S.W.3d at 712; 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 at 136. In
deciding whether the benefits of mandamus outweigh the detriments, we weigh the public
and private interests involved, and we look to the facts in each case to determine the
adequacy of an appeal. In re United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 313 (Tex. 2010)
(orig. proceeding); In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 469 (Tex. 2008) (orig.
proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136–37. In disputes
2
concerning notices of lis pendens, mandamus is the appropriate remedy and the relator
need not show that it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re I-10 Poorman Invs.,
Inc., 549 S.W.3d 614, 616 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding); In re
Rescue Concepts, Inc., 498 S.W.3d 190, 193 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, orig.
proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response, the reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not shown
itself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this
cause and we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed the 5th
day of February, 2019.
3
in Re MSW Corpus Christi Landfill, Ltd.
Combined Opinion