In Re Anderson & Associates, PLLC v. the State of Texas
Docket 13-26-00251-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Denied
- Docket
- 13-26-00251-CV
Petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court order redistributing an attorney fee award
Summary
The court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Anderson & Associates, PLLC seeking to overturn a trial court order of December 5, 2025 that redistributed an attorney fee award. The court explained mandamus requires showing both that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal, or that the order is void. The court concluded the relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, withdrew its prior order requesting responses from the real parties in interest, and denied the petition and emergency relief.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in redistributing an attorney fee award
- Whether the relator lacked an adequate remedy by appeal such that mandamus relief was appropriate
- Whether the trial court's December 5, 2025 order was void and thus subject to mandamus without showing lack of an adequate appellate remedy
Court's Reasoning
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of trial-court abuse of discretion and lack of an adequate appellate remedy, unless the order is void. The court reviewed the petition and applicable precedent and determined the relator did not lack an adequate remedy by appeal. Because an adequate appellate remedy exists, mandamus relief was not appropriate, so the petition and emergency relief were denied.
Authorities Cited
- In re Allstate Indemnity Co.622 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. 2021)
- Walker v. Packer827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992)
- In re Panchakarla602 S.W.3d 536 (Tex. 2020)
Parties
- Petitioner
- Anderson & Associates, PLLC a/k/a Anderson & Associates Law Firm, PLLC
- Real Parties in Interest
- Hilliard Law f/k/a Hilliard Martinez Gonzales, LLP
- Real Parties in Interest
- Thomas J. Henry Injury Attorneys
- Judge
- Jaime Tijerina, Chief Justice
Key Dates
- Trial court order challenged
- 2025-12-05
- Court of Appeals decision filed
- 2026-04-10
- Court withdrew request for response
- 2026-04-08
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult appellate counsel
Hire or consult an appellate attorney promptly to evaluate grounds for an appeal of the December 5, 2025 order and to preserve issues for review.
- 2
Prepare and file appeal
If appropriate, prepare and file a timely notice of appeal in accordance with Texas appellate rules to challenge the fee-redistribution order.
- 3
Consider procedural options
Evaluate whether any post-judgment motions in the trial court (e.g., motion to reconsider or clarify) should be filed before or in parallel with the appeal to preserve or improve the appellate posture.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court denied Anderson & Associates' request for mandamus relief and refused emergency temporary relief, concluding the firm has an adequate remedy by appeal.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Anderson & Associates (the petitioner) and the real parties in interest, Hilliard Law and Thomas J. Henry Injury Attorneys, are directly affected because the underlying fee-redistribution order remains subject to appeal.
- What happens next?
- Anderson & Associates can pursue an ordinary appeal from the trial court's December 5, 2025 order because the appellate remedy is considered adequate.
- Why wasn't mandamus granted?
- Because mandamus requires showing no adequate appellate remedy or that the order is void, and the court concluded an adequate remedy by appeal exists here.
- Can the decision to deny mandamus be challenged?
- Typically the correct next step is to file an appeal of the trial court's order rather than seek further mandamus from this court; consult counsel about appellate filings and deadlines.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
NUMBER 13-26-00251-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1
By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Anderson & Associates, PLLC a/k/a
Anderson & Associates Law Firm, PLLC contends that the trial court’s order of December
5, 2025 redistributing an attorney’s fee award is void or was otherwise rendered in error.
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 Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,
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).
840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); 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 abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re
USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; 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. Alternatively, when “a trial court
issues an order ‘beyond its jurisdiction,’ mandamus relief is appropriate because such an
order is void ab initio.” In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000)
(orig. proceeding)). When the order subject to review is void, the relator need not show
that it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 256,
261 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d at 605.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator possesses an adequate remedy by
appeal. Accordingly, we withdraw our order of April 8, 2026 requesting the real parties in
interest, Hilliard Law f/k/a Hilliard Martinez Gonzales, LLP and Thomas J. Henry Injury
Attorneys, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.
2
52.2, 52.4, 52.8. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for emergency
temporary relief.
JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed on the
10th day of April, 2026.
3