in Re Burns Motors, LTD

NUMBER 13-14-00111-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE BURNS MOTORS, LTD.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Burns Motors, Ltd., filed an amended petition for writ of mandamus in the
above cause on February 21, 2014, contending that the trial court erred in granting a
motion for new trial because the affidavit attached to the motion was not “sufficient
verification” to extend the trial court’s jurisdiction.
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
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.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus
relief and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003)
(orig. proceeding). When a trial court erroneously reinstates a case after its plenary power
has expired, there is no adequate remedy by appeal and mandamus is the appropriate
remedy. Estate of Howley v. Haberman, 878 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Tex. 1994) (orig.
proceeding); proceeding); In re CAS Cos., LP, No. 13-14-00003-CV, 2014 WL 346046,
at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 30, 2014, orig. proceeding); In re Gen. Motors
Corp., 296 S.W.3d 813, 830 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the amended petition for writ of
mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief sought.
Accordingly, the amended petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
25th day of February, 2014.
2