in Re Emma Perez Trevino, Carlos Sanchez, Marci Caltabiano-Ponce, Valley Morning Star, the McAllen Monitor, and AIM Media Texas, LLC ( 2018 )

NUMBER 13-18-00080-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE EMMA PEREZ TREVINO, CARLOS SANCHEZ, MARCI
CALTABIANO-PONCE, VALLEY MORNING STAR, THE MCALLEN
MONITOR, AND AIM MEDIA TEXAS, LLC
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
ORDER
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Order Per Curiam
This cause is presently before us on relators Emma Perez Trevino, Carlos
Sanchez, Marci Caltabiano-Ponce, Valley Morning Star, The McAllen Monitor, and AIM
Media Texas, LLC’s (collectively “relators”) petition for writ of mandamus. The petition
for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court, and we are currently awaiting a
response to relators’ petition from real party in interest, Mark A. Cantu.1
1 This Court recently granted in part Cantu’s order requesting an extension of time to file his brief.
In our order, we noted that further motions for extension of time would not be favorably entertained, absent
extraordinary circumstances.
Pending review of relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, relators also filed a
motion for temporary relief asking this Court to restrain Cantu from “spending, dissipating,
depleting, secreting, or otherwise moving, transferring, or burdening funds and assets,
other than in the ordinary course of business or for reasonable and necessary household
and living expenses” until this Court resolves relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.
Relators argue that “Cantu has established a pattern of disregard for court deadlines and
delay” and that Cantu’s communications to the trial court “suggest that he currently
possesses the means for satisfying the trial court’s October 3, 2017 order awarding
attorneys’ fees and costs to relators.” Relators also allege that Cantu “has a documented
history of hiding assets from courts and creditors.”
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10(a) gives relators to file motions for
temporary relief pending the Court’s action on the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(a).
In turn, the Court may then without notice grant any just relief pending the court’s action
on the petition. Id. R. 52.10(b).
The Court, having examined and fully considered relators’ motion for temporary
relief, is of the opinion that relators motion for temporary relief should be granted, pending
a response from Cantu. In addition to his response to relators’ petition for writ of
mandamus, Cantu is ordered to file a response to relators’ motion for temporary relief
within 10 days of this Court’s order. At the time that Cantu files his response to relators’
motion for temporary relief, this Court will re-examine and reconsider the relief ordered
today. See id. (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is
effective until the case is finally decided.”); id. R. 52.10(c) (“Any party may move the
court at any time to reconsider a grant of temporary relief.”).
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
12th day of March, 2018.
3