Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
IN RE PAULA JIMENEZ SANTIAGO AND MARLENE A. DOUGHERTY
Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Hinojosa
LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice 
petition for writ of mandamus Paula Jimenez Santiago and
Marlene A. Dougherty seek to vacate a November 17, 2016 order
requiring them to pay a monetary sanction of $6, 799.44 to
the real parties in interest and also seek to vacate the
February 27, 2017 order denying reconsideration of the
sanction order. Relators have filed a motion for emergency
stay seeking to stay the proceedings below pending resolution
of this original proceeding.
is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.,
L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding)
(per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear
abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492
S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears
the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re
H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker
v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992) (orig.
proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial
court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made
without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting
evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494
S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford
Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We
determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing
the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments.
In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex.
2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004)) (orig.
court's ruling on a motion for sanctions is reviewed
under an abuse of discretion standard. Cire v.
Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. 2004). Monetary
sanctions are generally not subject to mandamus because they
can be properly reviewed on appeal from a final judgment.
Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922, 928-29 (Tex.
1991); In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No.
08-15-00126-CV, 2016 WL 7230399, at *7, ___S.W.3d ___, ___
(Tex. App.-El Paso Dec. 14, 2016, orig. proceeding); In
re Noble Drilling (Jim Thompson), L.L.C., 449 S.W.3d
625, 632 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig.
proceeding); In re Onstad, 20 S.W.3d 731, 732-33
(Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, orig. proceeding); In re
Lavernia Nursing Facility, 12 S.W.3d 566, 571-72 (Tex.
App.-San Antonio 1999, orig. proceeding). However, where
monetary sanctions threaten the party's willingness or
ability to continue the litigation, remedy by appeal is
inadequate. Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 929; In re
Onstad, 20 S.W.3d at 733; In re Lavernia Nursing
Facility, Inc., 12 S.W.3d at 571. When a litigant
contends that a monetary sanction precludes access to the
court, the trial court must either (1) provide that the
sanction is payable only at a date that coincides with or
follows entry of a final order terminating the litigation; or
(2) make express written findings, after a prompt hearing, as
to why the award does not have such a preclusive effect.
Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 929; Galindo v. Prosperity
Partners, Inc., 429 S.W.3d 690, 697 (Tex. App.-Eastland
2014, pet. denied); In re Onstad, 20 S.W.3d at 733;
In re Lavernia Nursing Facility, Inc., 12 S.W.3d at
Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for
writ of mandamus, the record, and the applicable law, is of
the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled
to the relief sought in this cause. While relators contend
that the award of sanctions threaten their ability to move
forward with the litigation, the record in this proceeding is
insufficiently developed to assess whether a remedy by appeal
is inadequate. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of
mandamus and the motion for emergency stay without prejudice.
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). We GRANT relator's
emergency motion to withdraw the mandamus appendices.
 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d)
("When granting relief, the court must hand down an
opinion as in any other case, " but when "denying
relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so."); Tex.R.App.P. 47.4 (distinguishing
opinions and memorandum opinions).
 This cause arises from trial court
cause number 2015-DCL-06711 in the 445th District Court of
Cameron County. The real parties in this proceeding are
identified as Manuel E. Solis Jr. a/k/a Manuel Solis a/k/a
Manuel Solis Law Firm d/b/a Law Office of Manuel Solis d/b/a
Oficinas Juridicas del Abogado Manuel Solis d/b/a Despacho
Juridico de Manuel Solis d/b/a Law Offices of Manuel E. ...