In re Cecilo Noria and CS Auto, Ltd. Appeal from County Court at Law No. 8 of Hidalgo County (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00441-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE CECILO NORIA AND CS AUTO, LTD. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relators, Cecilo Noria and CS Auto, Ltd., filed a petition for writ of mandamus on August 8, 2016, seeking to compel the trial court to grant a plea in abatement based on dominant jurisdiction. Relators further seek temporary relief staying the proceedings in the cause below. To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re 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). Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 463 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly 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 analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). A relator need only establish a trial court's abuse of discretion to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief with regard to a plea in abatement in a case involving dominant jurisdiction. In re J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., No. 15-0631, 2016 WL 3159215, at *9, __ S.W.3d __, __ (Tex. May 27, 2016) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and request for emergency temporary relief are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 9th day of August, 2016 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
