Opinion
05-22-00745-CV
08-02-2022
IN RE VENKY VENKATRAMAN, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-03588
Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LANA MYERS, JUSTICE
Before the Court is relator's August 1, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's orders entered on or about July 8, 2022 and dated July 7, 2022, denying several of relator's motions. Relator contends the trial court denied relator due process by entering the orders without conducting a hearing on the merits, and the orders were entered after relator had given notice of and filed a motion to recuse.
Relator challenges the trial court's orders denying relator's Amended Motion to Compel Depositions; Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm that Stephen D. Skinner formed an Attorney-Client Relationship with Witnesses Sakshi Venkatraman and Smrithi Venkatraman, Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Sergio Flores and Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff's Amended Emergency Motion to Compel Deposition and Motion for Sanctions for Abuse of Discovery; and Amended Motion for Continuance.
Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
Based on our review of the petition and record, we conclude relator has failed to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).