NUMBER 13-21-00290-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE JODY MCINTYRE AND CASTINE MCILHARGEY
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1
Relators Jody McIntyre and Castine McIlhargey, proceeding pro se, have filed a
petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion to stay in the above-referenced
cause number. By petition for writ of mandamus, the relators contend that the trial court
abused its discretion by denying their motion to compel arbitration and by not allowing
relators “to have the benefit of counsel” after their attorney withdrew from representation.
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,” but “[w]hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case”);
id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
By emergency motion, the relators seek to stay all trial court proceedings pending
resolution of this original proceeding.
Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.
Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the
trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal.
In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both
requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840; see also Barnes v. State, 832
S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)
(“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the
extraordinary relief he seeks.”); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (establishing the
required form and contents for original proceedings).
A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts with disregard of guiding rules or
principles or when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d
836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). We determine the adequacy of an
appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments.
In re Acad., Ltd., 625 S.W.3d 19, 25 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Essex Ins. Co.,
450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co.
of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.
2
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
is of the opinion that the relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. First, the
petition is deficient. It fails to meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
52 insofar as it, inter alia, is incomplete and lacks an appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 52.3. Second, under both the FAA and the TAA, the denial of a motion to compel
arbitration is immediately appealable. See 9 U.S.C.A. § 16; TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
ANN. § 51.016, id. § 171.098; Beldon Roofing Co. v. Sunchase IV Homeowners’ Ass’n,
Inc., 494 S.W.3d 231, 236 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2015, no pet.); Brand
FX, LLC v. Rhine, 458 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.); Nazareth
Hall Nursing Ctr. v. Castro, 374 S.W.3d 590, 593–94 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2012, no pet.).
Third, absent exceptional circumstances, there is no general right to counsel in Texas in
civil cases. See, e.g., Erazo v. Sanchez, 580 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2019, no pet.); In re El Paso Healthcare Sys., Ltd., 225 S.W.3d 146, 153–54 (Tex.
App.—El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding). Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus and relators’ emergency motion to stay without prejudice. Our ruling herein
has no impact on any issues that may be raised in the related appeals pending in this
Court in cause numbers 13-21-00288-CV and 13-21-00291-CV.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
13th day of September, 2021.
3