In re 7-Eleven, Inc., 13-26-00114-CV, February 19, 2026.
On appeal from the 476th District Court of Hidalgo County.
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief after a trial court failed to rule on a Rule 91a motion to dismiss for several months following a hearing. While subsequent orders by the trial court rendered the Relators’ complaints regarding severance motions moot, the court’s continued silence on the “baseless claim” motion constituted a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-conflict Texas family law litigation, practitioners increasingly encounter “tort-crossover” claims—such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, or interference with possessory rights—filed alongside traditional divorce or SAPCR proceedings. This opinion provides family law litigators with a potent procedural hammer to force a trial court’s hand when it refuses to dispose of clearly baseless claims that are designed solely to increase leverage or drive up attorney’s fees. Because Rule 91a is intended for early and speedy disposition, this case confirms that a trial court cannot simply “sit” on a properly filed and heard motion to dismiss without facing mandamus intervention.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The underlying litigation involved claims of battery, negligence, and premises liability against 7-Eleven and its manager, Sandra Uribe, stemming from alleged acts of sexual violence by a store employee. After the trial court granted summary judgment and pleas to the jurisdiction on several claims, 7-Eleven sought to sever the dismissed claims to finalize the judgments. In August 2025, Uribe filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss the claims against her as baseless. The trial court held a hearing on both the severance and Rule 91a motions in October 2025 but issued no rulings. In January 2026, the Relators filed for mandamus relief. One day after the mandamus was filed, the trial court issued orders denying the severance and vacating prior summary judgments, but it remained silent on the Rule 91a motion.
Issues Decided
The Court of Appeals addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the trial court’s subsequent orders rendered the entire mandamus proceeding moot; and (2) whether a trial court abuses its discretion by failing to rule on a Rule 91a motion within a reasonable time after the motion has been filed and heard.
Rules Applied
The court relied on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, which governs the dismissal of causes of action that have no basis in law or fact. Specifically, Rule 91a.3 dictates that such motions “must be… granted or denied within [forty-five] days after the motion is filed.” While the court acknowledged that this deadline is directory rather than jurisdictional, it emphasized that the overarching purpose of Rule 91a is the “early and speedy dismissal of baseless claims.” The court further applied the standard mandamus criteria: a clear abuse of discretion and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal.
Application
The court first conducted a mootness analysis, determining that because the trial court eventually signed orders regarding the severance motions (even if they were denials), the controversy regarding those specific rulings had ceased to exist. However, the Rule 91a motion remained in limbo. The court analyzed the Relator’s burden to show that the motion was properly filed, the court was aware of it, a ruling was requested, and the court failed to act within a reasonable time. Despite the real parties’ argument that the Relators had not sufficiently “re-urged” the motion, the Court of Appeals found that the October hearing and the subsequent passage of several months—well beyond the 45-day directory window—constituted an unreasonable delay.
Holding
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on the Rule 91a motion within a reasonable period. The court dismissed the portion of the petition related to severance as moot but conditionally granted the writ as to the Rule 91a motion.
The court further held that while the 45-day requirement in Rule 91a.3 is directory, it serves as a benchmark for what constitutes a “reasonable time” for a trial court to act. Failing to rule months after the hearing undermines the very purpose of the Rule.
Finally, the court held that Relators established the necessary prerequisites for mandamus for a failure to rule: the motion was pending, the court was aware of it (having held a hearing), and the delay was objectively unreasonable given the procedural posture of the case.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case underscores the necessity of a “clean” record when seeking to compel a ruling. If you are facing a frivolous tort claim in a divorce and the judge refuses to sign an order on your Rule 91a motion, you must ensure the motion is set for a hearing and that you have a transcript of that hearing. Once the 45-day window closes—or a reasonable time thereafter—this case provides the authority to move for mandamus. It effectively prevents a trial court from using “pocket veto” tactics to keep baseless claims alive for the duration of a long-term custody or property dispute.
Checklists
Perfecting the Record for Mandamus on Failure to Rule
- Verify Filing: Ensure the Rule 91a motion was properly filed and served.
- Request a Hearing: Obtain a notice of hearing and ensure the hearing actually takes place on the record.
- Make an Explicit Request: During the hearing, explicitly ask the court to “issue a ruling” on the motion.
- Follow Up in Writing: If no ruling is issued within 30 days of the hearing, file a “Request for Ruling” or “Notice of Expiration of Rule 91a.3 Deadline” to demonstrate the court’s awareness.
- Monitor the 45-Day Clock: While directory, the 45-day mark is the trigger for arguing the delay has become unreasonable.
Avoiding Mootness Traps
- Analyze Subsequent Orders: If the trial court issues a partial order after you file for mandamus, immediately evaluate which issues remain live.
- Separate Your Issues: In your mandamus petition, treat Rule 91a and other procedural motions (like severance) as distinct grounds to ensure that a partial ruling by the trial court doesn’t result in a total dismissal of your petition.
Citation
In re 7-Eleven, Inc. d/b/a Stripes and Sandra Uribe, No. 13-26-00114-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 19, 2026, orig. proceeding).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In Texas family law, Rule 91a is a powerful but underutilized tool for disposing of “creative” pleadings often used as harassment. For example, if a spouse sues the other for “theft” of community property or “kidnapping” during a period of lawful possession, those claims have no basis in law. However, trial judges are often hesitant to dismiss these claims early, preferring to “let it all come out at trial.” In re 7-Eleven clarifies that the trial court does not have the discretion to wait until trial. By weaponizing this ruling, family litigators can force the court to prune the litigation of baseless torts early, potentially shifting attorney’s fees under Rule 91a.7 and narrowing the scope of discovery and trial.
~~fb975b4a-1093-4a04-b4d2-e347951e42be~~
Share this content: