Background
Taqueria La Siberia de Monterrey Inc., La Siberia Y La Malinche, Inc., and Fatima R. Errington sought mandamus relief in an underlying case pending before the 73rd Judicial District Court of Bexar County. They filed their petition with the Fourth Court of Appeals on July 14, 2026.
The memorandum opinion does not describe the challenged order in detail. In addressing whether ordinary appellate review was adequate, however, the court cited authority involving an appeal from a summary judgment alleged to have exceeded the parties’ agreement and added terms.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a), the court concluded that the relators had not established entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief.
Specifically, the relators failed to show that they lacked an adequate remedy by appeal. Because the availability of an adequate appellate remedy defeats entitlement to mandamus relief, the court denied the petition.
Key Takeaways
- Mandamus relief requires the relator to establish that ordinary appellate review is inadequate.
- The relators did not satisfy that requirement, so the court denied their petition.
- The court’s brief memorandum opinion did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for a conventional appeal. Even when a party contends that a trial court’s summary-judgment ruling exceeded an agreement or added terms, the party must explain why review after final judgment would not provide an adequate remedy.