Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Whataburger Restaurants, LLC sought mandamus relief after the trial court denied its motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, which governs dismissal of baseless causes of action. The memorandum opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the trial court’s reasons for denying the motion.
Real parties in interest Graciela Starkey and Rigoberto Martinez filed a response to the mandamus petition, and Whataburger filed a reply. The court considered those submissions and the applicable law.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied Whataburger’s petition for a writ of mandamus. It held that Whataburger had not met its burden to establish entitlement to the extraordinary remedy.
The court explained that mandamus requires a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal. Although mandamus review is available when a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a Rule 91a motion, the court did not find that Whataburger established the necessary basis for relief here.
Key Takeaways
- The court denied Whataburger’s request for mandamus relief from the denial of its Rule 91a motion.
- A relator seeking mandamus must show both a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate appellate remedy.
- The opinion provides no substantive discussion of the underlying claims or why Whataburger failed to meet its burden.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that the availability of mandamus review for a denied Rule 91a motion does not itself establish entitlement to relief. The movant must still demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.
Because the court issued a brief memorandum opinion without analyzing the pleadings or underlying claims, the decision offers limited guidance on Rule 91a’s substantive application beyond reaffirming the demanding mandamus standard.