In Re Nathan Alvarado and/or All Occupants v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00602-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE NATHAN ALVARADO AND/OR ALL OCCUPANTS

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relators “Nathan Alvarado and/or all Occupants”

seek to compel the trial court to vacate its orders pertaining to the underlying eviction

lawsuit. In five issues, relators assert that the trial court abused its discretion and lacked

jurisdiction over the case.

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). However, when a trial court’s order is

void, mandamus relief is appropriate, and the relator does not have to show that it lacks

an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000)

(orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the response filed by real parties in interest Samuel Trevino and Re/Max Sun Valley

Realtors, 2 and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden

to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JON WEST
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
4th day of December, 2025.

2 The real parties in interest filed a motion for leave to file an amended response to the petition for

writ of mandamus. We grant the motion for leave and consider the amended response as filed.

2