eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2018-12

in Re Mobile Mini, Inc. ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •                                  NUMBER 13-18-00551-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE MOBILE MINI, INC.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1
Relator Mobile Mini, Inc. (Mobile Mini) filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the
above cause on October 2, 2018. Through this original proceeding, Mobile Mini seeks to
compel the trial court to vacate its July 16, 2018 order denying Mobile Mini leave to
designate Nolana Self Storage, LLC (Nolana) as a responsible third party and to enter an
order permitting Mobile Mini to designate Nolana as a responsible third party. See
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).
generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 33.004 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st
C.S.).
Mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy, not issued as a matter of right, but at the
discretion of the court.” In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 138 (Tex. 2004)
(orig. proceeding). “Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when
there is no adequate remedy by appeal.” In re Frank Motor Co.,
    361 S.W.3d 628
    , 630
(Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding); see In re Olshan Found. Repair Co.,
    328 S.W.3d 883
    , 887
(Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
    Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135
    –36;
Walker v. Packer,
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). In determining
whether appeal is an adequate remedy, we consider whether the benefits outweigh the
detriments of mandamus review. In re BP Prods. N. Am., Inc.,
    244 S.W.3d 840
    , 845 (Tex.
2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins.
    Co., 148 S.W.3d at 135
    –36.
The Texas Supreme Court has held that mandamus may be appropriate to review
an order denying a defendant’s motion to designate a responsible third party. In re
Coppola,
    535 S.W.3d 506
    , 507–09 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see also
In re Dawson,
    550 S.W.3d 625
    , 627 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (allowing
mandamus review of an erroneous order granting a defendant’s motion for leave to
designate a responsible third party). This is because allowing a case to proceed to trial
despite the erroneous denial of a responsible-third-party designation would skew the
proceedings, potentially affect the outcome of the litigation, and compromise the
presentation of the relator's defense in ways unlikely to be apparent in the appellate
record. In re
    Coppola, 535 S.W.3d at 509
    . Accordingly, the relator need only establish
that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a timely filed motion to designate a
2
responsible third party to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.
    Id. at 510; 
    see In
re
    Dawson, 550 S.W.3d at 630
    .
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the applicable law, and the responses to the petition filed by real parties in interest, Luis
Covarrubias and Nolana, is of the opinion that the relator has not established its right to
the relief sought. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus and all relief
sought in this original proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), 52.10(b).
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Delivered and filed the
4th day of December, 2018.
3