In Re Cynthia Arteaga v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00400-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE CYNTHIA ARTEAGA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Cynthia Arteaga contends that the trial

court abused its discretion by: (1) denying relator “the opportunity to conduct discovery

upon the real parties in interest’s ten newly asserted affirmative defenses”; (2) denying

relator’s motion for a level three scheduling order and denying her motion to compel

discovery because “a continuance of the trial date re-set all of the deadlines included in

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 prior scheduling order”; and (3) failing to enforce a Rule 11 Agreement regarding

discovery. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 11.

“Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy available only on a showing that

(1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) 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); see In re Liberty Cnty. Mut. Ins., 679 S.W.3d 170, 174 (Tex. 2023) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex.

2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (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, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

Mandamus is intended for use in circumstances “involving manifest and urgent

necessity” and is not used “for grievances that may be addressed by other remedies.”

Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund,

LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 641 (Tex. 2021) (quoting Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840). “An appeal

is inadequate ‘when parties are in danger of permanently losing substantial rights,’ which

occurs when ‘the appellate court would not be able to cure the error, when the party’s

ability to present a viable claim or defense is vitiated, or when the error cannot be made

part of the appellate record.’” Id. (quoting In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d

203, 211 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

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. See Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc., 619 S.W.3d at 641. The

2
underlying case has been pending since 2018, has been set for trial on at least seven

previous occasions, and has been the subject of two separate original proceedings

pertaining to these same and related issues. See In re Arteaga, No. 13-25-00026-CV,

2025 WL 291269, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 24, 2025, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Arteaga, No. 13-24-00578-CV, 2024 WL 4906774, at *1

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Nov. 27, 2024, orig. proceeding [mand. denied])

(mem. op.). The record before the Court fails to show that the trial court abused its

discretion or that it has denied or compromised relator’s “ability to present a viable claim

or defense—or reasonable opportunity to develop the merits of the case.” In re Euless

Pizza, LP, 702 S.W.3d 543, 548 (Tex. 2024) (per curiam) (cleaned up); see Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 843. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JENNY CRON
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
11th day of August, 2025.

3