In re Poppingfun, Inc. Appeal from 150th District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-19-00322-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE POPPINGFUN, INC. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria 1 Relator Poppingfun, Inc. (Poppingfun) filed a pleading in the above cause on June 25, 2019, stating that it is “seeking reversal by Writ of Mandamus of the Trial Court’s June 12, 2019 Order Granting Motion to Compel post-judgment financial discovery.” Poppingfun references the June 25, 2019 order as “appealable” and states that it “petitions for issuance of writ of mandamus reversing the Order Granting Motion to See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). 1 Compel on the grounds that the trial court abused its discretion and Poppingfun Inc. has no adequate remedy by appeal.” Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued at the discretion of the court. In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order is a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (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). A petition for writ of mandamus must comply with the requirements of the appellate rules. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Athans, 458 S.W.3d 675, 676 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, the relator must furnish an appendix or record that is sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). 2 The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Poppingfun has not met its 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 is DENIED without prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Delivered and filed the 3rd day of July, 2019. 3

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.