in Re Plains Capital Bank, Yvonne Trevino, and Jim Krieger ( 2018 )

NUMBER 13-18-00417-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, YVONNE TREVINO,
AND JIM KRIEGER
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez1
Relators PlainsCapital Bank, Yvonne Trevino, and Jim Krieger filed a petition for
writ of mandamus in the above cause seeking to compel the trial court to vacate a July
27, 2018 discovery order and to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, or alternatively,
abate the case pending disposition of a related case pending in the Hidalgo County
Probate Court, or alternatively, enter an amended order limiting discovery. The July 27,
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.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2018 order at issue here allows specific, limited pre-arbitration discovery and provides
that relators’ motion to compel arbitration and alternative plea in abatement will be heard
within fifteen days of the date that relators produce the specified discovery. The Court
requested and received a response to the petition from the real party in interest, Jeff
Richter as attorney-in-fact for Aleah Sue Richter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300,
302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a
clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus
Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). Relators
bear the burden of proving both requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at
302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and
unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting
evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine
the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review
against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig.
proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response, the reply, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators
have not established their right to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay
previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or
2
modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”).
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
/s/ Rogelio Valdez
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed the
30th day of August, 2018.
3