From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Hubbard

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
May 23, 2023
No. 05-23-00469-CV (Tex. App. May. 23, 2023)

Opinion

05-23-00469-CV

05-23-2023

IN RE BRADLEY HUBBARD, M.D. AND DALLAS PLASTIC SURGERY INSTITUTE, Relators


Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-03134-B

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE

In their May 16, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus, relators challenge the trial court's denial of their motion for leave to designate a replacement expert witness. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

After reviewing the petition and the record before us, we conclude that relators have failed to demonstrate that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal. See PopCap Games, Inc. v. MumboJumbo, LLC, 350 S.W.3d 699, 718 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (reviewing on appeal whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion for leave to designate a replacement expert after original experts were struck).

We also question whether relators' unsworn verification adequately authenticates the mandamus record under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. The verification merely appears to affirm the attorney's future intent to swear to the verification's contents and does not invoke the penalty of perjury. See In re Lancaster, No. 05-23-00381-CV, 2020 WL 3267865, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 5, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (attorney's unsworn declaration wherein she declared that the facts stated in the declaration were true and correct did not invoke penalty of perjury). Nonetheless, we assume without deciding that relators' unsworn verification properly authenticated their record, and we deny the petition based on relators' failure to show that they lack an adequate remedy.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). Having denied the petition, we also deny as moot relators' motion for temporary stay.


Summaries of

In re Hubbard

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
May 23, 2023
No. 05-23-00469-CV (Tex. App. May. 23, 2023)
Case details for

In re Hubbard

Case Details

Full title:IN RE BRADLEY HUBBARD, M.D. AND DALLAS PLASTIC SURGERY INSTITUTE, Relators

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: May 23, 2023

Citations

No. 05-23-00469-CV (Tex. App. May. 23, 2023)