NUMBER 13-20-00015-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE DIANNA BERNSEN
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1
On January 13, 2020, relator Dianna Bernsen filed a petition for writ of mandamus
and an emergency motion for stay in the above cause. Through her petition for writ of
mandamus, relator argues that the trial court erred in issuing various verbal and written
orders compelling discovery on December 2, 2019, December 3, 2019, and December 5,
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).
2019. By emergency motion, relator seeks to stay the underlying proceedings, including
a show cause hearing set for January 13, 2019, regarding, inter alia, relator’s failure to
comply with the foregoing discovery orders.
“[M]andamus is both an extraordinary remedy and a discretionary one.” In re
Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). 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). 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.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met her burden to obtain
relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion
for stay.
JAIME TIJERINA,
Justice
Delivered and filed the
14th day of January, 2020.
2