                                 NUMBER 13-14-00660-CV

                                    COURT OF APPEALS

                          THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                             CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG


   IN RE BRIAN C. GUTIERREZ INDIVIDUALLY AND LAW OFFICE OF
                    BRIAN GUTIERREZ, P.L.L.C.


                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
                   Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

        Relators, Brian C. Gutierrez, individually, and Law Office of Brian Gutierrez,

P.L.L.C., filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion to stay the trial

court’s orders for mediation and continuance in the above cause on November 17, 2014.

Through this original proceeding, relators seek to compel the trial court to immediately




        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.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
rule on their motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a,

and further, to grant their motion to dismiss. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.

       Mandamus is appropriate when the relator demonstrates that the trial court clearly

abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Reece,

341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of

establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re

CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding).

       A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that is so arbitrary

and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails

to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital

Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The

adequacy of an appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of

mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262

(Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Because this balance depends heavily on circumstances,

it must be guided by the analysis of principles rather than the application of simple rules

that treat cases as categories. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex.

2008) (orig. proceeding). We evaluate the benefits and detriments of mandamus review

and consider whether mandamus will preserve important substantive and procedural

rights from impairment or loss. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.

       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 his burden to obtain

mandamus relief.      See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36.



                                               2
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion to stay are

DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).


                                           PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
20th day of November, 2014.




                                       3
