Opinion
NUMBER 13-20-00477-CV
11-13-2020
IN RE SHAMIM MEMON AND DISCOVERY MM SERVICES, INC.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so," but "[w]hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case"); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
By petition for writ of mandamus, relators Shamim Memon and Discovery MM Services, Inc. contend that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) refusing to issue a writ of supersedeas, and (2) denying the relators' motion to disqualify Kevin Pennell, who is counsel for the real parties in interest, Carl Meisner, M.D. and Gulf Coast Medical Research, LLC. Relators assert that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal to cure these alleged errors. We deny relief.
On July 16, 2020, relators filed an appeal in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas from the trial court's April 29, 2020 judgment vacating its prior new-trial order and confirming an arbitration award in favor of the real parties in interest. Pursuant to a docket equalization order, the Texas Supreme Court transferred the appeal to our Court, which we filed as appellate cause number 13-20-00340-CV.
Relators subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus in our Court which we docketed in appellate cause number 13-20-00346-CV. Relators also filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals which was docketed as appellate cause number 14-20-00707-CV. The real parties filed a response to the petition for writ of mandamus in cause number 14-20-00707-CV.
On October 28, 2020, we dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction based on an untimely notice of appeal and we dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. See Memon v. Meisner, Nos. 13-20-00340-CV & 13-20-00426-CV, 2020 WL 6343339, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Oct. 28, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (combined appeal & orig. proceeding).
On November 4, 2020, pursuant to Texas Government Code § 73.001, the Texas Supreme Court transferred the petition for writ of mandamus filed in appellate cause number 14-20-00707-CV to our Court, which we docketed in this cause number. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 ("The supreme court may order cases transferred from one court of appeals to another at any time that, in the opinion of the supreme court, there is good cause for the transfer.").
Mandamus is both an extraordinary remedy and a discretionary one. In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). For mandamus to issue, the relator must show that the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists to cure the error. In re N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., 559 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding); In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d at 840; In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 304; In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by the real parties in interest, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and all relief sought in this original proceeding. We dismiss as moot relators' (1) motion to abate the petition for writ of mandamus; (2) motion to stay the trial court proceedings; and (3) motion to withdraw the motion to abate.
JAIME E. TIJERINA
Justice Delivered and filed the 13th day of November, 2020.