Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00654-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE MELINDA DIXON ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron 1 By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Melinda Dixon asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) striking relator’s expert witnesses; and (2) denying relator’s motion to strike the expert witnesses of real party in interest Schley Fence, LLC d/b/a STX RV Roof (Schley). 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). “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available in limited circumstances to correct clear errors in exceptional cases.” In re Rogers, 728 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (citation modified); see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus is discretionary in nature and it is governed by equitable principles. In re First Rsrv. Mgmt., L.P., 671 S.W.3d 653, 663 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain a writ of mandamus, the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Lapuerta, 732 S.W.3d 548, 555 (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in disregard of guiding rules or principles or in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, or when it fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re Kappmeyer, 668 S.W.3d 651, 655 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding). A relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal when its ability to present a viable claim or defense is vitiated by an erroneous ruling. In re Euless Pizza, LP, 702 S.W.3d 543, 548 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 256 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by Schley, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. JENNY CRON Justice Delivered and filed on the 13th day of October, 2026. 2