Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00468-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE ATTUNE INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Peña, West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1 By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Attune Insurance Services, LLC (Attune) asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Attune’s “Amended Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Claims.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a (governing the dismissal of “baseless” claims). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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 only in limited circumstances . . . .’” In re Rogers, 728 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting City of Houston v. Hou. Mun. Emps. Pension Sys., 549 S.W.3d 566, 580 (Tex. 2018)). “A writ of mandamus is available to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal.” In re Lapuerta, 732 S.W.3d 548, 555 (Tex. 2026) (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). When the trial court abuses its discretion by denying a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, the movant lacks an adequate remedy by appeal and thus mandamus review is appropriate. See In re Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., 716 S.W.3d 525, 530 (Tex. 2025) (orig. proceeding); In re Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins., 621 S.W.3d 261, 266 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Essex Ins., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by real parties in interest Dr. Lena Speck Hopkins and Lena Speck Hopkins, M.D., P.A., relator’s reply thereto, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain relief as to its Rule 91a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We caution the parties that our ruling herein is limited to the specific issue before the Court—that is, the propriety of the trial court’s 2 ruling on the Rule 91a motion to dismiss—and is without prejudice to any other substantive matters that may be raised regarding the third-party claims that gave rise to this original proceeding. YSMAEL D. FONSECA Justice Delivered and filed on the 1st day of September, 2026. 3