in-re-david-lopez-sr-individually-and-as-representative-for-the-estate-of ( 2011 )

NUMBER 13-11-00290-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE DAVID LOPEZ SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE
FOR THE ESTATE OF SAN JUANA LOPEZ, DECEASED, CLAUDIA
GRIFALDO, CLARO LOPEZ, DALIA LOPEZ, RAUL LOPEZ, EDUARDO
LOPEZ, ROLANDO LOPEZ, AND DAVID LOPEZ JR.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
David Lopez Sr., individually and as representative for the estate of San Juana
Lopez, deceased, Claudia Grifaldo, Claro Lopez, Dalia Lopez, Raul Lopez, Eduardo
Lopez, Rolando Lopez, and David Lopez Jr., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the
above cause on May 5, 2011, seeking relief from an order denying a transfer of venue
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.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
from Victoria County, Texas, to Travis County, Texas. The Court requested and
received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in interest,
Regency Nursing Center Partners of Yoakum, Ltd., and further received a reply to the
response from relators.2
Ordinarily, mandamus relief lies when the trial court has abused its discretion and
a party has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 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). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so
arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it
clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law. See In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt.,
L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). However, where a party
seeks to enforce a mandatory venue provision a party is required only to show that the
trial court abused its discretion by failing to transfer the case and is not required to
prove that it lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Tex. Dept. of Transp., 218
S.W.3d 74, 76 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Nevertheless, appellate courts may not
deal with disputed areas of fact in a mandamus proceeding. In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C.,
247 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); In re Angelini, 186 S.W.3d 558,
560 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus, the response to the petition, and the reply thereto, under the applicable
standard of review, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to
2
The “Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” filed
by Yoakum on May 18, 2011, is herein GRANTED.
2
the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
31st day of May, 2011.
3