Opinion issued November 16, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-21-00226-CV
———————————
IN RE ANCHOR DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Anchor Development Group, LLC (“Anchor”) filed a petition for writ
of mandamus challenging two trial court orders, including: (1) a January 20, 2021
order denying Anchor’s motion to quash the subpoena of real party in interest,
F.E.F.Y. Trust, which requested documents and information concerning Anchor, and
(2) a January 22, 2021 order “that denied [Anchor’s] motion for legislative
continuance in part by allowing certain discovery to proceed during the
continuance.”1 Anchor’s mandamus petition requests that we direct the trial court
to vacate the portion of the January 20, 2021 order denying Anchor’s motion to
quash the third-party subpoena and to vacate the portion of the January 22, 2021
order allowing certain discovery to proceed during the legislative continuance.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus in part and dismiss as moot in part.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available in limited
circumstances. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). To be
entitled to mandamus relief, a relator generally must show both that the trial court
abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re
Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004). To establish an abuse of
discretion, a relator must show “a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply
the law correctly.” See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
In its first issue, Anchor asserts that, in connection with the January 22, 2021
order, the “trial court clearly abused its discretion by granting only a partial
legislative continuance,” to the extent that the trial court “still required [Anchor] to
produce certain documents and allowed other parties in the case to conduct written
discovery.” According to Anchor, the legislative continuance statute did not permit
1
The underlying case is Ana Josefa Garcia de los Salmones, as Trustee of F.E.F.Y.
Trust v. Albert Ortiz, Anchor Development Group, LLC, Texas Funding
Corporation, 7502 Harrisburg, LLC, Sandra S. Cepeda, Michael Donovan, and
G.H. Reid Enterprises LLC, Cause No. 2018-72333, in the 55th District Court of
Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Latosha Lewis Payne presiding.
2
the trial court to make any exceptions to the continuance and the trial court had a
ministerial duty to stay the entire case. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.
§ 30.003(a)–(b).
Generally, when properly requested, a trial court has no discretion to refuse a
request for legislative continuance. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.
§ 30.003(b); In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 318 (Tex. 2005). However,
pursuant to the express language of the statute, the legislative continuance expires
thirty days after the date on which the legislature adjourns sine die. See TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 30.003(b).
Here, Anchor properly sought a legislative continuance where one of its
attorneys, Harold V. Dutton, Jr., was to “be in attendance of a Regular Session of
the [Texas] Legislature beginning January 12, 2021.” The Regular Session of the
87th Texas Legislature, the legislative session at issue in Anchor’s motion for
legislative continuance, began on January 12, 2021 and ended sine die on May
31, 2021. Therefore, Anchor’s entitlement to a legislative continuance pursuant to
its motion for legislative continuance ended on June 30, 2021.
Accordingly, any action taken by this Court would be rendered moot because,
as of June 30, 2021, Anchor was no longer entitled to a continuance in connection
with the Regular Session of the 87th Texas Legislature. See In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d
297, 300 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001, orig. proceeding) (concluding
3
review of trial court ruling denying request for legislative continuance rendered
moot because opinion issued after expiration of legislative continuance period). We
dismiss Anchor’s challenge to the trial court’s January 22, 2021 order denying, in
part, Anchor’s motion for legislative continuance as moot.
In its second issue, Anchor asserts that the trial court, in the January 20, 2021
order, abused its discretion to the extent that the trial court denied Anchor’s motion
to quash the F.E.F.Y. Trust’s third-party subpoena for documents related to Anchor.
We conclude that that Anchor has failed to establish that the trial court abused its
discretion and deny Anchor’s challenge to the trial court’s January 20, 2021 order.
Conclusion
We deny Anchor’s petition for writ of mandamus in part and dismiss it as
moot in part. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c). All pending motions are dismissed as
moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Countiss, and Guerra.
4