NUMBER 13-25-00325-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE DAISY FUENTES AND MCCOY CORPORATION

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1 By petition for writ of mandamus, relators Daisy Fuentes and McCoy Corporation contend that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering them to produce “all primary and excess policies of insurance that may provide coverage in this case.” Relators have also filed a motion for emergency stay of the trial court’s order pending the resolution of this original proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10.

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).

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (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 relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 192.3(f); 194.2(b)(7); In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W.3d 298, 304 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for emergency stay.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Delivered and filed on the 17th day of June, 2025.