Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00631-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE AMBER NICOLE PEREZ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1 By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Amber Nicole Perez seeks to compel the trial court to either rule on pending motions or produce an order of assignment “identifying the judge authorized to preside” over the underlying case. 2 Relator contends, 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). 2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 26-05-93630-B in the 135th District inter alia, that the trial court has failed to rule on a motion filed on August 14, 2026, and on “other ripe motions,” yet “orders in the same cause are being signed by another district judge without any order of assignment.” “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). 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 relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7; see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). “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 Court of Victoria County, Texas. The respondent in this original proceeding is the Honorable Kemper Stephen Williams III. See id. R. 52.2. This Court has previously addressed an appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus arising from this same trial court cause number. See Perez v. Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests, Inc, No. 13-26-00470-CV, 2026 WL 2350020, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi– Edinburg Aug. 13, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (dissolving a temporary injunction); In re Perez, No. 13-26- 00561-CV, 2026 WL 2212242, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 31, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying relief). In conjunction with this original proceeding, relator concurrently filed a different petition for writ of mandamus, docketed in our appellate cause number 13-26-00632-CV, which we dispose of by separate memorandum opinion issued on this same date. See In re Perez, No. 13-26-00632-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg ____, __, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Finally, relator currently has an appeal pending from this same case that has been filed in our appellate cause number 13-26-00603-CV. 2 AutoZoners, LLC, 694 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). “A trial court has no discretion to determine what the law is, even when the law is unsettled, and abuses its discretion when its rulings are arbitrary, unreasonable, or made without reference to guiding legal principles.” In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 712 S.W.3d 53, 59 (Tex. 2025) (orig. proceeding). 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). “This balancing test is necessarily a fact-specific inquiry that ‘resists categorization.’” In re Acad., Ltd., 625 S.W.3d 19, 32 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am, 148 S.W.3d at 136). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the record provided, 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. YSMAEL D. FONSECA Justice Delivered and filed on the 11th day of September, 2026. 3