In Re Fat Cat Boatworks, LLC v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00283-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE FAT CAT BOATWORKS, LLC

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Fat Cat Boatworks, LLC asserts that the

trial court abused its discretion by allowing the joinder of claims and it lacks an adequate

remedy by appeal. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available when the trial court

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).
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); 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). “A court abuses its

discretion if no evidence supports the finding on which its ruling rests and if the court

could reasonably have reached only a contrary conclusion.” In re AutoZoners, LLC, 694

S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). We conduct a “benefits-and-

detriments analysis” to determine if the relator possesses an adequate remedy at law. In

re Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam); see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136–37.

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

the response filed by real party in interest Paul “Pablo” Benavides, relator’s reply thereto,

the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to

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

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
16th day of June, 2026.

2