in Re T.W. Laquay Dredging, Inc. ( 2011 )

NUMBER 13-11-00691-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE T. W. LAQUAY DREDGING, INC.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
T. W. LaQuay Dredging, Inc.., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above
cause on October 28, 2011, seeking relief from the trial court’s failure to grant a no-
evidence motion for summary judgment and the trial court’s “verbal grant” of the real
party in interest’s oral motion for continuance of the hearing on the no-evidence motion
for summary judgment.
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).
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). 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). 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 under the applicable standard of review, is of the opinion that relator has not
shown itself entitled to 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
7th day of November, 2011.
2