Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg.

IN RE GULF MOVING SYSTEMS, INC.

NUMBER 13-16-00321-CV

|

Delivered and filed July 20, 2016

Attorneys & Firms

Susan R. Sullivan, Atlas Hall & Rodriguez, McAllen, TX, Mike Mills, Atlas, Hall & Rodriguez, McAllen, TX, Mary A. Keeney, Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody, Austin, TX, for Relator.

Daniel Lee Fulkerson, Lorance & Thompson, P.C., Houston, TX, Bradley Dean McClellan, Of Counsel, Law Offices of Richard Pena, P.C., Austin, TX, Scott S. Vasquez, Austin, TX, Richard Pena, Law Offices of Richard Pena, P.C., Austin, TX, M. Joe Greer, Law Offices Of Richard Pena, PC, Austin, TX, for Real Parties in Interest.

J. R.’Bobby’ Flores, Edinburg, TX, for Respondent.

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam¹

*1 Relator Gulf Moving Systems, Inc. (Gulf Moving) filed a petition for writ of mandamus on June 15, 2016, contending that the trial court lacks jurisdiction because the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers Compensation has exclusive jurisdiction over the personal injury lawsuit filed against Gulf Moving by Jose Maria Morales Jr. The Court requested and received responses to the petition for writ of mandamus from real parties in interest Morales and Bekins Van Lines, Inc., and further received a reply to Morales’s response from Gulf Moving.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 463 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The adequacy of an appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We evaluate the benefits and detriments of mandamus review and consider whether mandamus will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.

When a trial court erroneously denies a plea to the jurisdiction, the fact that the party seeking mandamus may be “forced to endure the ‘hardship’ of a full-blown trial” if the appellate court declines mandamus relief is not, alone, sufficient to render remedy by appeal inadequate. In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). However, mandamus may lie to correct a trial court’s denial of a plea to the jurisdiction based on an agency’s exclusive jurisdiction because “the judicial appropriation of state agency authority would be a clear disruption of the ‘orderly processes of government.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Sewell, 487 S.W.2d 716, 719 (Tex. 1972)); see In re Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 295 S.W.3d 327, 328–29 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding); In re Mid–Century Ins. Co. of Tex., 426 S.W.3d 169, 178 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding). More specifically, mandamus is appropriate to review a claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to dismiss claims over which the Division of Workers’ Compensation has exclusive jurisdiction. In re Crawford & Co., 458 S.W.3d 920, 921 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the responses, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

	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.”); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).