In re Core Constr. Serv. of Texas

Full title: IN RE CORE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OF TEXAS, INC., Relator

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

Date published: Jun 24, 2009

No. 05-09-00665-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 24, 2009)

Opinion

No. 05-09-00665-CV

Opinion issued June 24, 2009.

Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DC 07-05413.

Before Justices WRIGHT, O'NEILL, and FILLMORE.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion by Justice WRIGHT.

Relator contends the trial judge erred in granting real party in interest's motion for a protective order and relator's motion to compel regarding discovery about real party in interest's immigration status. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). Accordingly, we DENY relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

The Court further cautions counsel for relator to remember his duty of candor to this Court. See Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct § 3.03. Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus states, " Covarrubias ¹ is the only Texas case to determine whether a plaintiff's immigration status should be admitted vis-à-vis the recovery of lost earnings." Petition at 9. This statement is false. Relator completely ignores the existence of Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Guzman, 116 S.W.3d 233 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2003, no pet.) as well as Contreras v. KV Trucking, Inc., 2007 WL 2777518 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2007) (applying Texas law). Both of these cases were cited by real party in interest below. See Appendix/Record to Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Volume 1, Tab 4 at 8. Deliberately misrepresenting the law in order to obtain mandamus relief "demeans the integrity of the judicial system and violates the rules of professional conduct." In re Michael S. Harris, M.D., 2005 WL 2212298 at *1-*2 (Tex.App. Sept. 13, 2005) (orig. proceeding); see also In re City of Lancaster, 228 S.W.3d 437, 440 and n. 4 (Tex.App. 2007) (orig. proceeding) (explaining counsel's duty not to misrepresent or mischaracterize legal authorities in mandamus proceeding). We trust relator's counsel will be more cautious in the future.

1 ABC Rendering of San Antonio, Inc. v. Covarrubias, 1972 Tex. App. LEXIS 2794 (Tex.Civ.App.Nov. 22, 1972, no writ) (not designated for publication).