In Re Fat Cat Boatworks, LLC v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 13th District
Date FiledJune 16, 2026
Docket13-26-00283-CV
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NUMBER 13-26-00283-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE FAT CAT BOATWORKS, LLC
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1
By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Fat Cat Boatworks, LLC asserts that the
trial court abused its discretion by allowing the joinder of claims and it lacks an adequate
remedy by appeal. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available when the trial court
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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on
appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding); In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “A court abuses its
discretion if no evidence supports the finding on which its ruling rests and if the court
could reasonably have reached only a contrary conclusion.” In re AutoZoners, LLC, 694
S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). We conduct a “benefits-and-
detriments analysis” to determine if the relator possesses an adequate remedy at law. In
re Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per
curiam); see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136–37.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response filed by real party in interest Paul “Pablo” Benavides, relator’s reply thereto,
the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to
obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
16th day of June, 2026.
2