Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva, 13-26-00117-CV, February 06, 2026.
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus that sought to compel a trial court to set a civil case for trial after repeated refusals. Because the trial court eventually entered a trial setting for April 2026 while the mandamus was pending, the appellate court determined that the Relators could no longer demonstrate an entitlement to extraordinary relief, effectively mooting the challenge to the trial court’s prior inaction.
Relevance to Family Law
In the context of Texas Family Law, where “justice delayed is justice denied” takes on a visceral meaning regarding child possession and support, this ruling highlights a significant tactical hurdle. Family law litigators often face “docket limbo” where a trial court refuses to set a final hearing on a SAPCR or a complex property division, often leaving temporary orders in place indefinitely. This opinion underscores that even an egregiously distant trial setting—in this case, several months or years away—may serve as a “procedural cure” that prevents an appellate court from intervening via mandamus to address a trial court’s previous refusal to act.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Relators, Adrian and Mary Zuniga, sought mandamus relief against a trial court that had allegedly refused to assign their civil case for trial. Despite multiple announcements of “ready” by all parties involved, the trial court removed the case from its docket without providing a specific mechanism for it to be heard. The Zunigas argued that this perpetual state of uncertainty constituted a clear abuse of discretion. However, while the petition for writ of mandamus was pending before the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, the trial court took action. Specifically, the Relators notified the appellate court that the trial court had finally scheduled the case for a trial date of April 20, 2026.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether a trial court’s refusal to set a case for trial constitutes an ongoing abuse of discretion warranting mandamus relief once the trial court has actually provided a future trial date.
Rules Applied
The court applied the standard for mandamus relief established in Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) and In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004), which requires a showing that (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. Furthermore, the court relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8 regarding the disposition of petitions for writ of mandamus and the Relators’ burden to prove both prongs of the mandamus standard as reiterated in In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016).
Application
The appellate court’s analysis was truncated by the trial court’s own subsequent action. Mandamus is intended to compel a lower court to perform a ministerial duty or to correct a clear abuse of discretion when no other remedy exists. Here, the “injury” complained of was the absence of a trial setting. Once the Relators informed the Court of Appeals that the trial court had placed the case on the calendar for April 20, 2026, the immediate grievance—the failure to set the case—was technically resolved. The court reasoned that because a trial date now exists, the Relators can no longer show that the trial court is currently “refusing” to act in a manner that requires the extraordinary intervention of an appellate court.
Holding
The Court held that the Relators failed to meet their burden to obtain mandamus relief. Because the case was now set for trial, the court denied the petition without prejudice.
The court also withdrew its previous order requiring a response from the Real Party in Interest and denied the Relators’ emergency motion for temporary stay as the underlying necessity for the stay was superseded by the denial of the petition.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case illustrates the “trap” of the distant trial setting. If you file a petition for writ of mandamus to break a case out of “docket limbo,” the trial court can effectively “moot” your petition by simply picking a date on the calendar—even if that date is two years in the future. Appellate courts are generally hesitant to micromanage a trial court’s docket or determine what constitutes a “reasonable” time for a trial setting unless the delay is extreme and violates due process. To counter this, practitioners must build a record that does more than just show the court refused to set the case; they must be prepared to argue that the specific date provided is so distant that it constitutes a de facto denial of access to the courts or causes irreparable harm to the best interests of the children involved.
Checklists
Preserving Error for Docket Inaction
- File a Formal Motion for Trial Setting: Do not rely on oral requests during status conferences; ensure there is a written demand in the clerk’s record.
- File a Written Announcement of Ready: Explicitly state that all discovery is complete and the case is ready for disposition.
- Request a Hearing on the Motion to Set: If the court ignores the motion, set a hearing on the motion itself to force a ruling on the record.
- Obtain a Written Order: If the court refuses to set the case, ask for a signed order denying the motion for a trial setting.
Strategies When a Distant Date is Set
- Motion to Accelerate: File a motion to move the trial date forward, citing specific harms (e.g., child’s age, depletion of marital assets, or instability of current temporary orders).
- Due Process Record: Create a record of why a two-year delay is a constitutional violation in the specific context of your case (especially in SAPCR matters).
- Renewed Mandamus: If the court sets a date that is clearly a pretext for further delay (e.g., a date three years away), a new mandamus may be filed specifically challenging the reasonableness of the setting, rather than the absence of one.
Citation
In re Adrian and Mary Zuniga, No. 13-26-00117-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 6, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be strategically weaponized by a party who benefits from the status quo in a divorce or custody modification. If you represent the party who is satisfied with the current temporary orders—perhaps a father with primary possession or a spouse residing in the community homestead—you can use the trial court’s inherent docket management authority to delay finality. If the opposing party attempts to mandamus the judge for a trial date, the “Zuniga Defense” suggests that the trial court can simply grant the motion by setting a trial date two years out. This effectively kills the mandamus, leaves the temporary orders in place for the foreseeable future, and forces the moving party back to square one in a trial court that may now be frustrated by the attempted appellate oversight. In family law, where “the temporary becomes the permanent,” this procedural maneuver is a powerful tool for maintaining a favorable existing environment.
~~a81cba37-28df-44fb-81c4-06c243b88809~~
Share this content: