In Re Palker Properties, LLC v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00005-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE PALKER PROPERTIES, LLC

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Pena1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Palker Properties, LLC asserts that the

trial court abused its discretion in numerous respects by issuing orders allowing real party

in interest Ronald Torres to enter a leasehold to remove secured property. 2

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).
2 Relator subsequently filed a motion for leave regarding the filing of its second amended petition

for writ of mandamus and its original mandamus record. The Court grants relator’s motion for leave and
considers these filings on their merits.
Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,

148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show “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 Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 138; 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.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the second amended petition for

writ of mandamus, the amended response filed by Torres, relator’s reply, and the

applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain relief.

Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10.

After due consideration, we deny the following pending motions: (1) Torres’s request for

dismissal and show-cause relief; (2) Torres’s motion to enforce the trial court’s order and

for a sworn accounting; and (3) relator’s motion for sanctions against Torres. We deny

the petition for writ of mandamus.

L. ARON PEÑA JR.
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
27th day of May, 2026.

2