NUMBER 13-23-00452-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE CHANTEL ELIZONDO

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1 By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Chantel Elizondo seeks to compel the trial court to vacate the following orders signed on October 23, 2023: (1) the “Order on Father’s Motion for Emergency Relief Regarding Travel Authorization”; and (2) the “Order on Father’s Motion for Alternative Relief.” Relator further seeks to stay all trial court

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). proceedings pending the resolution of this petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus, and we similarly deny relator’s request to stay the trial court proceedings.

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice Delivered and filed on the 25th day of October, 2023.