Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina
LETICIA HINOJOSA JUSTICE. 
Farr Builders, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
the above cause seeking to compel the trial court to (1)
vacate the September 11, 2019 order denying relator's
motion to compel arbitration and stay the trial court
proceedings; (2) issue an order compelling arbitration and
staying the state court proceedings; and (3) vacate all
orders rendered after September 11, 2019.
is an extraordinary remedy issued at the discretion of the
court. In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018)
(orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain relief by writ of
mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order
is void or is a clear abuse of discretion and there is no
adequate appellate remedy. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of
Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding);
see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d
124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (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 at 712; 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. proceeding). In deciding whether the benefits of
mandamus outweigh the detriments, we weigh the public and
private interests involved, and we look to the facts in each
case to determine the adequacy of an appeal. In re United
Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 313 (Tex. 2010)
(orig. proceeding); In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc.,
275 S.W.3d 458, 469 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136-37.
denying motions to compel arbitration are subject to
interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code Ann. § 51.016 (providing for appeals in matters
subject to the Federal Arbitration Act "under the same
circumstances that an appeal from a federal district
court's order or decision would be permitted by 9 U.S.C.
Section 16"); id. § 171.098 (providing for
an appeal of an order denying an application to compel
arbitration under the Texas Arbitration Act); Houston NFL
Holding L.P. v. Ryans, 581 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.); see also 9
U.S.C.A. § 16; In re Granchelli Constr., LLC,
No. 13-18-00460-CV, 2018 WL 4056990, at *1-2 (Tex. App.-
Corpus Christi-Edinburg Aug. 24, 2018, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.); In re Dallas Food & Beverage, LLC,
No. 05-17-00643-CV, 2017 WL 2610040, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas
June 16, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Hart
of Tex. Cattle Feeders, LLC, No. 07-16-00194-CV, 2016 WL
3180436, at *2 (Tex. App.-Amarillo June 2, 2016, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.). Because relator had an adequate
remedy by appeal, it is not entitled to mandamus relief.
See In re Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 445 S.W.3d
216, 218-19 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, orig.
proceeding) (refusing to grant mandamus relief for an order
denying a motion to compel arbitration where relator
challenged the trial court's order after expiration of
the time for filing an interlocutory appeal); see also In
re Granchelli Constr., LLC, 2018 WL 4056990, at *1-2;
In re Dallas Food & Beverage, LLC, 2017 WL
2610040, at *1.
Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for
writ of mandamus, the record, and the applicable law, is of
the opinion that the relator has not met its burden to obtain
mandamus relief. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ
of mandamus and all relief sought therein.
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."); id. R. 47.4