Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-26-00438-CV __________________ IN RE ELOISA AGUIRRE __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 58th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 26DCCV1549 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Eloisa Aguirre (Aguirre or Relator) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court, complaining of the trial court’s failure to immediately rule upon Aguirre’s motions in trial court Cause Number 26DCCV1549 pending in the 58th District Court of Jefferson County. Aguirre, a self-represented party, sued Real Parties in Interest MHC Financial Services, LLC (MHC), Offerman & King, L.L.P., James W. King, and Marc P. Henry for wrongful sequestration and for violating the Texas Debt Collections Act. 1 Aguirre contends that on September 9, 2026, she filed MHC previously filed a petition for sequestration in the County Court at Law 1 Number One of Jefferson County Texas. That lawsuit, which the County Clerk 1 a Rule 12 motion in the trial court for the attorneys representing MHC to show authority, asking the trial court to disqualify MHC’s counsel of record and strike MHC’s answer. Aguirre also contends that she filed a motion for default judgment asking the trial court to sign a default judgment awarding Aguirre a $10,427,693 judgment against MHC, and that she sought to sever her claims against MHC to make them final. In her Petition for Mandamus in this Court, Aguirre asks the appellate court to compel the trial court to immediately rule upon Aguirre’s Rule 12 motion to show authority wherein she asks the trial court to disqualify MHC’s counsel of record and strike MHC’s answer, and order the trial court to sign a default judgment awarding Aguirre a $10,427,693 judgment against MHC, and sever her claims against MHC to make the default judgment final. We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See 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). “A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and docketed as Trial Court Case Number 24CCCV0964, was the subject of a separate mandamus proceeding wherein Aguirre argued MHC was trying to enforce a void Rule 11 settlement agreement entered in an earlier sequestration proceeding filed in Harris County Civil Court at Law Number 3. See In re Aguirre, No. 09-26-00228- CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 5897 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 25, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Offerman & King, L.L.P., James W. King, and Marc P. Henry represented MHC in the sequestration proceeding. 2 unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839 (internal quotations omitted). A trial court also abuses its discretion if it fails to correctly analyze or apply the law, because a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments, considering whether extending mandamus relief will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Aguirre argues her motions have been pending for a reasonable time, she requested a ruling, and the judge failed to rule within a reasonable time. Mandamus may issue to remedy a trial court’s delay in ruling on a Rule 12 motion. See In re Z Resorts Mgmt., LLC, No. 05-23-00425-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 7131, at **10- 12 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (granting mandamus relief when trial court left pending for six months a Rule 12 challenge to a next friend’s authority to represent minor plaintiffs). Whether a reasonable time for a trial judge to rule on a pending motion has elapsed depends on the circumstances. Id. at *15. Aguirre argues further delay in securing a ruling on her 3 motions gives the parallel proceedings in the County Court at Law an opportunity to develop and provides an opportunity for MHC to secure other counsel. We conclude that on this record, the Relator has not shown that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on November 4, 2026 Opinion Delivered November 5, 2026 Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ. 4