In Re Ayleen Esparza v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Opinion issued April 11, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00269-CV
———————————
IN RE AYLEEN ESPARZA, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In April 2023, Relator Ayleen Esparza served her sworn responses to Real
Party in Interest Johnson Fence and Masonry, LLC’s Requests for Admissions
denying certain requests. In February 2024, after deposing Relator, Real Party
moved to sanction Relator for failure to admit “the truth of various matters . . . and
[for] her abuse of the discovery process in resisting discovery.” Relator did not
respond to the Motion for Sanctions or appear at the March 18, 2024 hearing on the
motion.1 On March 18, 2024, the trial court signed an order granting the Motion for
Sanctions, ordering Relator to pay $35,202.45 within fourteen days of the order, and
noting that failure to pay by the due date would result in a penalty of $500 per day
and the potential imposition of additional sanctions. The fourteen days expired on
April 1, 2024.
On April 8, 2024, Relator filed an Application for Writ of Mandamus
requesting we direct the trial court to “vacate the award of sanctions” granted on
March 18, 2024.2 Relator also filed an Emergency Motion requesting we stay the
trial court’s order pending adjudication of her writ. The next day, Real Party filed a
response opposing the application and request for emergency stay.
1
In its application, Relator states that no record was made of the March 18, 2024
sanctions hearing.
2
The underlying case is Johnson Fence and Masonry, LLC v. Stephen Anthony
Walsh, Teresita Tezeno a/k/a Teresita N. Valdez, JBlake Construction LLC, S.O.A.
Construction Services, LLC, Amados Tractors Inc., Olver Amado Cureno-Nava,
Fernando Ivan Cureno, Amado Cureno, Ayleen Estefania Esparza, Cause No. 2022-
75023, in the 11th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Kristen
Hawkins presiding.
2
We deny Relator’s Application for Writ of Mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.8(a); In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1999) (“A party’s right to
mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for some action and a refusal
of that request.”); In re Jindal Saw Ltd., 264 S.W.3d 755, 767 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding) (pet. granted) (holding that failure to advance
arguments at trial level prevented relators from asserting such arguments on
mandamus); In re Bank of America, No. 01–02–00867–CV, 2003 WL 22310800, at
*2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 9, 2003, orig. proceeding) (“[I]t would be
hard to conclude, without circumstances that were highly unusual or that made a trial
court’s ruling void, that a trial court could abuse its discretion in making a ruling for
a reason that was never presented to the court.”).
All pending motions are denied as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.
3