In re Auburn Creek Limited Partnership, The Lynd Company, Lynd Family Limited Partnership, and Forty Four Eleven, LLC Appeal from 73rd Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-21-00389-CV IN RE AUBURN CREEK LIMITED PARTERNSHIP, The Lynd Company, Lynd Family Limited Partnership, and Forty Four Eleven, LLC, Relator(s) Original Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 6, 2021 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On September 15, 2021, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for stay of the underlying proceedings pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. The real parties in interest filed a response to which relators replied. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when the relator can show (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion or violated a duty imposed by law; and (2) there is no adequate remedy by way of appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). After considering the petition and the record, this court concludes relators did not show they are entitled to the relief sought. 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017-CI-17349, styled Hang Pau, et. al v. Auburn Creek Limited Partnership, pending in the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The orders at issue in this original proceeding were signed by the Honorable Aaron S. Hass, Presiding Judge of the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas and the Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Presiding Judge of the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. 04-21-00389-CV Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Relators’ motion for temporary relief is denied as moot. PER CURIAM -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.