The Mandamus Trap: Thirteenth Court Rejects Extraordinary Relief for Failure to Correct Procedural Defects in the Record
In Re Action Car Rental, L.L.C., 13-26-00045-CV, February 19, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus because the relator failed to comply with a court directive to cure procedural and record defects required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4 and 52.3. Despite asserting a substantive legal defense under the federal Graves Amendment, the relator’s failure to maintain a compliant appellate record proved fatal to its request for extraordinary relief.
Relevance to Family Law
In the volatile environment of Texas family law, mandamus is the primary weapon for challenging non-appealable temporary orders, jurisdictional disputes in SAPCR cases, and overbroad discovery. This ruling serves as a critical reminder that even the most compelling substantive argument—such as a clear violation of a Standing Order or a misapplication of the Family Code—will be summarily rejected if the practitioner fails to adhere to the hyper-technical requirements of TRAP 52. For family litigators, a failure to provide a certified or sworn record or ignoring a court’s order to amend a petition is equivalent to a waiver of the client’s rights.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Action Car Rental, L.L.C. sought mandamus relief after the trial court denied its motion for summary judgment. The Relator’s substantive argument was predicated on the Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 30106), a federal statute that generally preempts state vicarious liability laws for businesses engaged in renting or leasing motor vehicles. The Relator contended that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion by failing to apply this controlling federal law to shield it from liability for a lessee’s torts.
Upon filing the petition, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals identified specific procedural deficiencies and record defects. The Court issued a formal directive to the Relator to amend its petition to comply with the formatting and content requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Despite the Court’s order, the Relator failed to file an amended petition or correct the record. Interestingly, the Real Party in Interest also failed to file a response, despite being ordered to do so by the Court.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether a Relator is entitled to extraordinary mandamus relief when they fail to satisfy the procedural requirements for the petition and the record as mandated by TRAP 9.4 and 52.3, specifically after being given an opportunity by the court to cure such defects.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the dual-pronged mandamus standard established in In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. and Walker v. Packer, requiring a showing of a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.
The procedural grounds for the denial rested on:
* Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(j)(5): Governing the form and length of documents.
* Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(d, k): Specifying the required contents of the petition and the mandatory appendix/record.
* Tex. R. App. P. 52.8: Governing the court’s action on the petition and the issuance of memorandum opinions.
Application
The court’s analysis was not focused on the merits of the Graves Amendment but on the Relator’s failure to carry its evidentiary and procedural burden. Mandamus is a discretionary remedy, and the burden remains exclusively on the relator to provide a record sufficient to establish the right to relief. The Thirteenth Court provided the Relator with a “roadmap” to viability by directing an amendment to the petition and record. By failing to respond to this directive, the Relator effectively abandoned its burden. The Court reasoned that without a compliant record and petition, it could not exercise its discretion to find an abuse of discretion at the trial level. The legal story here is one of procedural forfeiture: the merits of the underlying summary judgment became irrelevant the moment the Relator ignored the appellate court’s curative instructions.
Holding
The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The Court held that the Relator failed to meet the threshold burden of proof required to obtain relief.
The Court further clarified that the failure to correct the petition and record as directed under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure is, in itself, sufficient grounds to deny the petition without reaching the underlying legal merits.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case emphasizes that “procedural” is “substantive.” If you are seeking mandamus relief regarding a trial court’s refusal to enforce a Rule 11 agreement or an improper temporary custody modification, you must ensure your appendix contains certified or sworn copies of every document material to your claim. If the Clerk of the Court sends a notice of defect, treat it as a “red alert.” In the Thirteenth Court (and most others), the merits will never save a defective record.
Checklists
Perfecting the Mandamus Record
- Verify the Appendix: Ensure every document cited is included in the appendix and is either a certified copy or a copy accompanied by a sworn affidavit.
- Compliance with TRAP 52.3: Double-check that the petition contains a proper identity of parties, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, and the issues presented.
- Record Certification: Confirm that the court reporter’s transcript (if a hearing was held) is included or that you have certified the absence of a transcript.
Responding to Court Directives
- Calendar the Deadline: Treat an order to “amend or cure” with the same priority as a statute of limitations.
- Address Every Defect: If the court cites Rule 9.4 and 52.3, do not just fix the record; review the entire petition for font size, margins, and certificate of compliance.
- Communicate Non-Compliance: If a Real Party in Interest fails to respond (as happened here), use that to your advantage in a supplemental brief, but do not let their silence lull you into procedural complacency.
Citation
In re Action Car Rental, L.L.C., No. 13-26-00045-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 19, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized by trial counsel to protect a favorable, albeit questionable, temporary order. If your opposing counsel files a petition for writ of mandamus, your first line of defense is not the merits of the Family Code; it is the adequacy of their record. By meticulously scanning their appendix for unsworn documents or missing trial court exhibits, you can move the appellate court to deny the petition on procedural grounds. Just as the Court in Action Car Rental denied relief despite a potential federal preemption defense, an appellate court will deny a family law mandamus if the relator fails to provide a flawless record of the trial court’s alleged error. Always look for the “Mandamus Trap”—the failure of the relator to meet their heavy burden of providing a compliant record.
~~6529f0bc-3ed2-4467-8450-d74756924a3b~~
Share this content:
