Juan Pardo is the relator in a civil case pending in the 138th District Court of Cameron County, where Claudia Almazan is the real party in interest.¹ Almazan says Pardo's deposition was noticed four times and reset or missed, that a constable served him with a subpoena, that a first writ of attachment issued when he disobeyed it, and that at a show-cause hearing on December 30, 2025, he agreed on the record and was ordered to appear for deposition on January 8, 2026, but did not.² A second writ then issued; Almazan says it was simply mistitled and should have been called a "Writ of Arrest".³ Pardo describes the writ as a "Writ of Attachment" under Rule 592 that directed law enforcement to seize his person rather than property.⁴ Justice Hawkins's concurrence describes the order before the Court as one styled "Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment of Juan Pardo," signed by the trial judge, that directed "any sheriff or constable" to "immediately take" Pardo into custody in "jail with cash [b]ond," on the basis of his litigation opponent's affidavit.⁵

Pardo sought mandamus relief in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (No. 13-26-00122-CV), which, in his account, denied relief without deciding whether Rule 592 authorizes arrest and then denied rehearing as moot on March 6, 2026.¹ Almazan says that court dismissed his three mandamus petitions because he did not carry his burden of showing an abuse of discretion and did not pay for the record.² The vehicle in this Court is a document titled a petition for review, filed April 20, 2026, from the denial of mandamus relief. Almazan moved to dismiss it; the Court requested a response, which she filed on June 16, 2026. Almazan also reports that she nonsuited her claims against Pardo with prejudice after a settlement, that the trial court signed the dismissal on March 9, 2026, and that a final judgment followed.³ The Court denied the petition on October 9, 2026, and dismissed Almazan's motion to dismiss as moot.

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi-Edinburg), arising from the 138th District Court of Cameron County; the petition was denied on October 9, 2026, with a concurring opinion.

Pardo presents three issues:¹ 1. Whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 592 authorizes arrest or confinement of a person in a civil case. 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in treating the mandamus proceeding as moot when the challenged conduct is capable of repetition yet evading review. 3. Whether mandamus relief is appropriate when a litigant faces deprivation of liberty without statutory authority or due process protections.

Almazan reframes them as whether the trial judge had inherent and statutory power to enforce his subpoena and order by arrest, whether Pardo carried his mandamus burden, and whether the case is moot.²

Neither the Court nor the concurrence stated a standard of review.¹

Whether Rule 592 authorizes arrest of a person, and whether the issue is live.

Relator (Pardo): Rule 592 governs attachment of property, requires identification and valuation of property, and says nothing about arrest or confinement, so using it in place of contempt procedures bypasses the notice and hearing due before confinement.¹ The case is not moot because writs can be withdrawn once their coercive effect is achieved and cases settled under threat of arrest before review is possible, and his separate civil action shows continuing risk.² Mandamus is proper because loss of liberty cannot be remedied by appeal, and the issue affects liberty interests statewide.³

Real Party in Interest (Almazan): The label "Writ of Attachment" and the citation to Rule 592 are a misnomer, because the court had power to enforce its subpoena and orders by arrest under Government Code Sections 21.001, 21.002, and 24.011, and Pardo got a show-cause hearing and then defied the court's order.⁴ Pardo failed to prove an abuse of discretion or to pay for the record, and the petition is moot because the writ expired at the December 30, 2025, hearing and the case was nonsuited and finalized.⁵

Pardo argued the petition presents a recurring question of statewide importance about whether Rule 592 may be used to arrest a person, that trial courts lack guidance on it, and that it is capable of repetition yet evading review.¹ Almazan answered that the question is moot and turns on a mislabeled writ.²

None

Holding

The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus without an opinion of its own, so it announced no holding. Justice Hawkins, joined by Justice Young and Justice Sullivan, concurred in the denial and wrote that Rule 592 likely does not authorize arrest of a deponent, that the Court should intervene in an appropriate case if the practice recurs, and that this case was not the vehicle.¹

Reasoning

The Court gave no reasons for denying the petition. The reasoning below is Justice Hawkins's alone.

Rule 592 is about property. Justice Hawkins thought the answer to whether Rule 592 permits "the arrest and confinement of an uncooperative deponent" is no, because the rule addresses a court's power to preserve "property" pending further orders, apparently to freeze a defendant's assets so they can satisfy a judgment.² Its safeguards, including a sworn application, a judge's written order with findings, valuation ceilings, and bond and replevy terms, do not fit the seizure of a person: "What is the maximum value of a deponent?".³ The order before the Court is "hard to see" as an application of Rule 592.⁴

Other tools exist. The Rules of Civil Procedure and the Government Code already provide ways to rein in and punish litigation misconduct, including Rule 176.8's confinement for disobeying a subpoena and the contempt statutes, each with due-process protections; the trial court perhaps could have justified the arrest by invoking a different authority and making a higher showing than Rule 592 demands.⁵

Why deny review here. The parties dispute whether the trial court understood itself to be applying Rule 592 or merely mislabeled its order, their briefs largely talk past each other, and Pardo filed no reply; the writ has expired, the claims have been nonsuited, and nothing suggests he faces similar punishment again.⁶ Justice Hawkins closed that "if this arises again in a future case, our intervention may be warranted".⁷

Disposition

Petition for writ of mandamus denied, and Almazan's motion to dismiss dismissed as moot.

Vote Breakdown

Justice Hawkins filed an opinion concurring in the denial, joined by Justice Young and Justice Sullivan.⁸