Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00666-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE GELT FINANCIAL, LLC ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1 By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Gelt Financial, LLC (Gelt) asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on Gelt’s motion for summary judgment in a timely manner. “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available in limited circumstances 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). 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). The trial court has the ministerial duty to consider and rule on pending motions that were properly filed, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re Liverman, 658 S.W.3d 881, 882 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, orig. proceeding). The relator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. In re Robbins, 622 S.W.3d 600, 601 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on the motion. In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d 743, 748 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2014, orig. proceeding). Merely filing a document with the district clerk neither imputes the clerk’s knowledge of the filing to the trial court nor equates to a request that the trial court rule on the motion. In re Huang, 491 S.W.3d 383, 385 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]). Whether a reasonable period has elapsed is dependent on the circumstances of each case. In re GTG Sols., Inc., 642 S.W.3d 47, 50 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding). 2 The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by real parties in interest AROD Investments LLC and Aracely Rodriguez, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Gelt has not met its burden to obtain relief based on the limited record provided in this original proceeding. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. JON WEST Justice Delivered and filed on the 13th day of October, 2026. 3