In Re Juan M. Garcia, MD. Appeal from 445th District Court of Cameron County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00421-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE JUAN M. GARCIA, M.D. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relator Juan M. Garcia, M.D., filed a petition for writ of mandamus on July 21, 2016, requesting that we compel the trial court to: (1) apply Chapter 11 of the Texas Business Organizations Code to the dissolution of several business entities jointly owned by Garcia and the real party in interest, Dr. Rolando Posado; (2) order an accounting from the auditor, and (3) “create a docket control order consistent with those procedures.” 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). emergency motion, Garcia requests that we stay all trial court proceedings pending resolution of this original proceeding. 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 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). The adequacy of an appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We evaluate the benefits and detriments of mandamus review and consider whether mandamus will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. 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 and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for stay of the proceedings are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 22nd day of July, 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.
