The Texas Court of Appeals has denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Splashtown Holdings, LLC, Chrismari, Inc., and Surf San Antonio Inc. This decision affects the outcome of a legal dispute stemming from an injury case involving a minor. The court's ruling is significant as it highlights the legal challenges businesses face when dealing with personal injury claims.

The petition was filed on October 7, 2026, as part of ongoing litigation in Bexar County, Texas. The court ruled on October 29, 2026, denying the petition and an accompanying emergency motion to stay the underlying proceedings. This ruling means that the legal case against the companies will continue without interruption.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Splashtown Holdings, LLC, Chrismari, Inc., and Surf San Antonio Inc., which operate a water park and related businesses. The dispute originated from a lawsuit filed by Walter Martinez, who is suing on behalf of his minor child, J.M., for injuries allegedly sustained at the water park. The case is currently pending in the 224th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, with Judge Marisa Flores presiding.

The relators, or petitioners, sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a ruling made by Judge Nicole Garza of the 37th Judicial District Court. The specifics of the ruling being challenged were not detailed in the court's opinion. However, it is common for businesses to seek mandamus relief in order to contest lower court decisions that they believe are erroneous or that could significantly affect their operations.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the relators were not entitled to the relief they sought. The court stated, "After considering relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, the mandamus record, and the parties’ briefing we conclude relators are not entitled to the relief sought." This ruling effectively allows the underlying case to proceed without any delay caused by the mandamus petition.

Judges Lori I. Valenzuela, Lori Massey Brissette, and Adrian A. Spears II were involved in the decision-making process. Their ruling indicates that the court found no merit in the arguments presented by Splashtown Holdings and its affiliated companies.

Impact

The denial of the mandamus petition means that the case against Splashtown Holdings and its affiliates will continue in the lower court. This outcome is significant for the companies involved, as it may lead to further legal proceedings, including a potential trial regarding the injury claims made by the plaintiff.

This ruling may also set a precedent for similar cases where businesses seek to challenge lower court decisions through mandamus petitions. It underscores the difficulties that companies can face when dealing with personal injury claims, particularly in the context of recreational facilities. The court's decision may discourage other businesses from pursuing similar legal remedies in the future.

What's Next

As the case continues in the lower court, it remains to be seen how the proceedings will unfold. The relators may still have options for appeal after the trial court's final ruling. However, the court filing did not provide details on any related cases or potential future actions.