Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00676-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE WILBERT FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1 Relator Wilbert Funeral Services, Inc. has filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which it seeks to compel the trial court to vacate its order denying summary judgment and render summary judgment in relator’s favor. Relator has also filed a motion 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). for temporary relief requesting that we stay the trial court proceedings pending the disposition of its petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(a). “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 to establish the right to relief in an original proceeding. 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). “Mandamus is ‘generally unavailable when a trial court denies summary judgment.’” In re Tafel, 738 S.W.3d 440, 446 (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Academy, Ltd., 625 S.W.3d 19, 32 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding)); see In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 465 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). “This general rule recognizes that many summary judgments do not implicate substantive rights—like a party's right to arbitration or the right to be represented by its chosen attorney—that would be defeated if trial proceeded,” and “prevents undue interference with trial court proceedings by adding to the expense and delay of civil litigation through parallel appellate proceedings.” In re Tafel, 738 S.W.3d at 446. Nevertheless, “mandamus relief can be appropriate when the act of proceeding to trial defeats a substantive right that cannot be protected by a normal appeal . . . .” Id.; see, e.g., In re Academy, 625 S.W.3d at 35; In re Facebook, Inc., 625 S.W.3d 80, 87 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding). 2 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 its burden to obtain relief. See In re Lapuerta, 732 S.W.3d at 555; In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief. JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice Delivered and filed on the 29th day of September, 2026. 3