Plaintiff argues correctly that Wal-Mart in its Motion failed to satisfy the pleading requirements for medical malpractice claims. Consequently, the current Motion will be denied, but Wal-Mart will be allowed to reurge its Motion to comply with the pleading requirements of Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. See In re Broad, 370 S.W.3d 797, 798 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2012) (citing In re Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC, 355 S.W.3d 304, 306 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2011, orig. proceeding)). It is hereby ORDERED that Wal-Mart's Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties [Doc. # 20] is DENIED without prejudice to being reurged as discussed herein.

, In re Smith, 366 S.W.3d 282, 289 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, orig. proceeding) ("[W]e conclude that In re Oncor stands for the proposition that appeal is ordinarily an inadequate remedy when a trial judge erroneously denies a motion for leave to designate a responsible third party without granting leave to replead."); In re Broad, 370 S.W.3d 797, 798 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, orig. proceeding) (citing Oncor for the proposition that "denying a motion for leave to designate a responsible third party without giving relator an opportunity to replead the facts concerning that person's liability is an abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy at law"). --------