Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2024

In Re Cynthia Arteaga v. the State of Texas

In Re Cynthia Arteaga v. the State of Texas
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided November 27, 2024

In Re Cynthia Arteaga v. the State of Texas

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00578-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE CYNTHIA ARTEAGA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1 Relator Cynthia Arteaga filed a petition for writ of mandamus and request for stay in the above-referenced cause number. Relator contends that the trial court abused its discretion on November 19, 2024 by denying her motion for rehearing on a motion to compel discovery of “items that are relevant, material[,] and necessary” for her claims and

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). causes of action against real parties in interest Rio Home Health Care, LLC, TexMed Home Health, Inc., CATAC Enterprises LP, Richard Troy Nelson, Christopher Lofton, and ARC Primary Care, LLC. Relator seeks to stay the December 2, 2024 jury trial setting.

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 on 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, the response, 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 the request for stay.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 27th day of November, 2024.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.