in Re Cameron County ( 2021 )

NUMBER 13-21-00309-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE CAMERON COUNTY
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1
In this original proceeding, relator Cameron County asserts that the trial court
abused its discretion in disqualifying its counsel, Juan A. Gonzalez, in a lawsuit that
Cameron County filed against Cameron County Sheriff Eric Garza in his individual and
official capacities.
Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.
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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,
840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148
S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that “(1) the trial
court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal.” In
re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts with
disregard for guiding rules or principles or when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable
manner. In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d at 840. We determine the adequacy of an appellate
remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re
Acad., Ltd., 625 S.W.3d 19, 25 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Essex Ins. Co., 450
S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response filed by Garza, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Cameron County
has not met its burden to obtain mandamus relief. Disqualification of a party’s counsel is
a harsh remedy and there are numerous reasons why such motions are not granted
liberally. In re Murrin Bros. 1885, Ltd., 603 S.W.3d 53, 57 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding)
(noting that disqualification “can result in significant expense to clients, disrupt the orderly
progress of litigation, and deprive a party of the counsel of its choice”); In re Thetford, 574
S.W.3d 362, 373 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding) (stating that disqualification “can result in
immediate and palpable harm, disrupt trial court proceedings, and deprive a party of the
2
right to have its counsel of choice”) (quoting In re Nitla S.A. de C.V., 92 S.W.3d 419, 422
(Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). Nevertheless, in certain extraordinary
circumstances, important policy considerations compel disqualification “to protect the
integrity of the trial process and judicial system as a whole.” In re Columbia Valley
Healthcare Sys., L.P., 320 S.W.3d 819, 826 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding). This original
proceeding represents one such case.
We lift the stay previously imposed in this original proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified an order granting temporary relief is effective until
the case is finally decided.”). After applying an exacting standard for reviewing the
disqualification order, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See id. R. 52.8(a), (d).
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed on the
19th day of October, 2021.
3