In Re Polaris Industries, Inc. v. the State of Texas

                               NUMBER 13-23-00587-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG


                           IN RE POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC.


                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                     Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña
                      Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

        Relator Polaris Industries, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus contending that

the trial court abused its discretion by denying relator’s motion for leave to designate

responsible third parties and by quashing notices of depositions for various witnesses.

Relator also seeks emergency relief to stay the trial court proceedings pending the


        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).
resolution of its petition for writ of mandamus.

       This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number DC-22-02 in the

229th District Court of Duval County, Texas. Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution

delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, and states that the courts of

appeals “shall have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed

by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a). The main source of original jurisdiction for the courts

of appeals is provided by § 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE

ANN. § 22.221; In re Cook, 

 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig.

proceeding). In pertinent part, this section provides that the intermediate appellate courts

may issue writs of mandamus against specified judges in our district and “all other writs

necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b).

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding. Relator seeks

mandamus relief against the judge of the 229th District Court of Duval County. However,

Duval County is not located within the geographic district for the Thirteenth Court of

Appeals, but, instead, is located within the geographic district for the Fourth Court of

Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(e) (delineating the counties comprising the

Fourth Court of Appeals District); id. § 22.201(n) (delineating the counties comprising the

Thirteenth Court of Appeals District). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ against the

judge of the 229th District Court of Duval County. See id. § 22.221(b). Further, there is

no indication in the record that the requested relief is necessary to enforce our appellate




                                             2
jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus

and request for emergency relief for want of jurisdiction.


                                                               CLARISSA SILVA
                                                               Justice

Delivered and filed on the
21st day of December, 2023.




                                             3