in Re PlainsCapital Bank ( 2018 )

NUMBERS 13-16-00210-CV AND 13-16-00463-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, Appellant,
v.
RICARDO DIAZ MIRANDA, Appellee.
On appeal from the 275th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
NUMBER 13-16-00464-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE PLAINSCAPITAL BANK
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
ORDER
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria
Order Per Curiam
On March 15, 2018, this Court issued its memorandum opinion and judgments
disposing of these three above-referenced causes.1 On March 26, 2018, appellant
PlainsCapital Bank (PlainsCapital) filed three combined post-judgment motions entitled
“Emergency Motion to Expedite Issuance of Mandate or Motion to Amend Judgment.”
In the combined motion, PlainsCapital specifically requests that this Court issue its
mandates “immediately” citing “good cause.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c) (“The mandate
may be issued earlier if the parties so agree, or for good cause on the motion of a party.”);
see also id. R. 18.1(a) (outlining deadlines of when a court of appeals may issue its
mandate). In its motion, PlainsCapital argues that appellee Ricardo Diaz Miranda (Diaz)
“is a Mexican national . . . with substantial ties to Mexico that allow him to conceal or
otherwise abscond with assets that PlainsCapital may use to satisfy its judgment.” At trial
in the underlying appeals, Diaz testified to owning and operating a trucking business in
Mexico. PlainsCapital asserts, however, that its asset search in Mexico “did not find any
record documents that show Diaz held assets in those states.” PlainsCapital further
argues that due to Diaz’s “significant business connections and assets in Mexico,” a
“substantial risk” that Diaz “will move or hide assets out of the jurisdictional limits for
judgment enforcement in the United States” exists. As a result, PlainsCapital seeks
issuance of an early mandates in this case to aid PlainsCapital’s enforcement of our
1 These appellate cause numbers are: (1) 13-16-00210-CV; (2) 13-16-00463-CV; and (3) 13-16-
00464-CV. See PlainsCapital Bank v. Diaz Miranda; In re PlainsCapital Bank, Nos. 13-16-00210-CV, 13-
16-00463-CV, 13-16-00464-CV, 2018 WL 1325779 at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 15, 2018, no pet.
h.).
2
judgments. In its combined motion, we note that PlainsCapital included a certificate of
conference which states that counsel for PlainsCapital conferred with counsel for Diaz
and Diaz’s counsel “does not oppose this motion.”
Having examined and considered PlainsCapital’s combined, unopposed motion to
expedite issuance of mandates, or in the alternative, motion to amend judgments, this
Court is of the opinion that the motion to expedite judgment should be GRANTED. See
id. R. 18.1(c). The Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the mandates in appellate cause
number 13-16-00210-CV and 13-16-00463-CV on April 3, 2018.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
27th day of March, 2018.
2 We dismiss as moot PlainsCapital’s motion to expedite issuance of mandate as it relates to
appellate cause number 13-16-00464 because the Court does not issue mandates in original proceedings.
3