Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina
TIJERINA JUSTICE 
Esther Akindayomi et al. filed a petition for writ of mandamus
and emergency motion to enforce an automatic stay in the
above cause on December 6, 2019. Relators contended that the
trial court abused its discretion by conducting proceedings
in violation of the automatic stay provided by Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(b). See
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(b).
Relators asked that we stay all proceedings pending in the
464th District Court that were "improperly transferred
to the originating trial court" by the MDL pretrial
court in cause number MDL-15-0360-G.
order previously issued, this Court granted relators'
request for emergency relief and ordered the trial court
proceedings stayed. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b)
("Unless vacated or modified, an order granting
temporary relief is effective until the case is finally
decided."). We requested that the real parties in
interest, Rio Grande Regional Hospital, Inc., HCA Health
Services of Texas, Inc., and Resource Corporation of America
& Recovery of Texas, LLC, or any others whose interest
would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a
response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before
the expiration of ten days from the date of this order.
See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. These real parties have
now filed their response to the petition for writ of mandamus
and have further filed an emergency motion to dissolve the
stay order that we previously issued in this case.
is both an extraordinary remedy and a discretionary
one." 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 a clear abuse of discretion and that no
adequate appellate remedy exists. In re Nationwide Ins.
Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
proceeding); 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, 494 S.W.3d at 712;
Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex.
2012). A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to
analyze or apply the law correctly or apply the law correctly
to the facts. In re Nationwide, 494 S.W.3d at 712;
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex.
2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
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 at 136. 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 Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136-37. Mandamus "may be
essential to preserve important substantive and procedural
rights from impairment or loss, [and] allow the appellate
courts to give needed and helpful direction to the law that
would otherwise prove elusive in appeals from final
judgments." In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.
148 S.W.3d at 136.
Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for
writ of mandamus, the response, and the applicable law, is of
the opinion that the relators have not met their burden to
obtain relief. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. § 51.014(a)(12), (b) (providing for an automatic
stay applicable to trial court proceedings pending
interlocutory appeal under the Texas Citizens Participation
Act); In re Geomet Recycling LLC, 578 S.W.3d 82, 87
n.1 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding) (collecting cases and
stating that "[a]lthough the stay is mandatory, like
most other legal rights its application may be waived by
agreement of the parties"); Roccaforte v. Jefferson
Cty, , 341 S.W.3d 919, 923 (Tex. 2011) (holding that a
party may waive complaints about a trial court's actions
in violation of the mandatory stay imposed by §
51.014(b)); see also In re Dep't of Family &
Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637, 646 (Tex.
2009) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we lift the stay
previously imposed in this cause, deny the petition for writ
of mandamus, and dismiss the emergency motion filed by the
real parties in interest as moot. Our opinion and ruling
herein is limited to the specific case from which this
original proceeding arises, that is, trial court cause number
C-2809-19-L in the 464th District Court of Hidalgo County,
Texas, and should not be construed otherwise.
 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
(distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
 Relators include Esther Akindayomi,
Deyanira Arango, GuadalupeArmstrong, Michael B. Bass, Maria
De Mora Betancourt, Sanjuanita Cadena, Maura Cardenas, Elisa
Castro, Diana Cavazos, Raquel Cerda, Silvia Conlan, Silvia
Cook, Irma Cruz, Manuel Enriquez, Alejandra Vasquez Espinoza,
Irma Flores, Joanne Flores, Maria Del Carmen Gonzalez, Maria
Guajardo, Alex Guillen, Cesar Guzman, Maria Guadalupe Guzman,
Esthela Hernandez, Lyzbeth Leon, Lyzbeth Leon, Mario
Martinez, Mario Martinez, Andrameda Mendoza, Ana Moniet, Raul
Montalvo Jr., Raul Montalvo Jr., Graciela Perez, Graciela
Perez, Ramon Perez, Alejandra Reyes, Claudio Rodriguez,
Gloria Rodriguez, Maria Rodriguez, Valdemar Rodriguez, Ramona