Background
HK Real Estate Development LLC, Brady Baggs, Paul W. Kuo, SRT #1, LLC, and P3R, LLC sought mandamus relief in an original proceeding arising from Freasier, LLC v. Brady Baggs, Paul W. Kuo, HK Real Estate Development, LLC, SRT #1, LLC, and P3R, LLC. That case was pending before Judge Russell Wilson in the 218th Judicial District Court of Wilson County, Texas.
The relators filed their mandamus petition on July 29, 2026. The real party in interest responded on September 2, 2026, and the relators filed a reply. The memorandum opinion does not describe the challenged ruling or the specific relief requested.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. After considering the petition, the record, the response, and the reply, the court concluded that the relators were not entitled to the relief sought.
The court relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a), which directs an appellate court to deny mandamus relief when the court determines from the petition and any response that the relator is not entitled to relief. The per curiam memorandum opinion provided no further analysis of the merits.
Key Takeaways
- The court denied the relators’ mandamus petition.
- The decision followed review of the petition, record, response, and reply.
- The brief opinion did not identify the challenged trial-court ruling or explain why the requirements for mandamus relief were unmet.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves the underlying Wilson County litigation in place without granting extraordinary appellate relief. Because the court issued a summary memorandum opinion without discussing the challenged ruling or governing merits, the decision offers little substantive guidance beyond its application of Rule 52.8(a).