In Re D. Wilson Construction Co. v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 13th District
Date FiledOctober 26, 2026
Docket13-26-00712-CV
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NUMBER 13-26-00712-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE D. WILSON CONSTRUCTION CO.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1
Relator D. Wilson Construction Co. filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking
to compel the trial court to grant relator’s motion to dismiss a petition seeking presuit
discovery under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 202. This Court
ordered the real parties in interest, Jack Casso, Ruben Cavazos, Ramon Dones, Vicki
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).
Eckenrode, Norma Irene Espinoza, Marisela Frith-Smith, David Hill, Tommy King, Norma
Lerma, Julio Lopez, Sylvia Perez, Horacio Quintero, Janet Schroeder, and Terry
Shropshire, and any others whose interests may be affected by the relief sought, to file a
response to the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
However, the real parties in interest have now informed us that on October 15, 2026, they
filed a “Notice of Non-Suit Without Prejudice” in the underlying proceedings advising the
trial court that they “no longer wish to pursue” their petition for the presuit deposition of
relator’s corporate representative.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the notice filed by the real parties in interest, is of the opinion that this original
proceeding has been rendered moot. See In re Cont. Freighters, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 810,
813 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Heckman v. Williamson County, 369
S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737
(Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus
as moot.
YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
26th day of October, 2026.
2