Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg.

IN RE A/C TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC

NUMBER 13-20-00253-CV

|

Delivered and filed July 9, 2020

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Attorneys & Firms

Catherine Tobin, Alexander Hilliard, John Duff, Marion Reilly, Rudy Gonzales, Jessica Pritchett, Joseph F. Manak, for Real party in interest Faircloth, Sherry Lynn, Faircloth, Robert.

Darryl J. Silvera, Jace Powell, Tamara Rodriguez, Glenn D. Romero, for Relator.

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides¹

*1 Relator A/C Technical Services, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above referenced cause on July 7, 2020. Relator contends that the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation, has exclusive jurisdiction to address certain issues currently pending before the trial court. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial court to vacate its April 1, 2020 order denying relator’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss.

Mandamus is an “extraordinary” remedy. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); see In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). In order to obtain mandamus relief, the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); see In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus may be appropriate to correct a trial court’s denial of a plea to the jurisdiction based on an agency’s exclusive jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Crawford & Co., 458 S.W.3d 920, 928 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); In re Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 295 S.W.3d 327, 328–29 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met its burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

	Footnotes
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,” but “[w]hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).