In Re Completerx, Ltd., 366 S.W.3d 318

Good Shepherd Hospital sued CompleteRx for an accounting related to a former pharmacy management agreement.
CompleteRx offered a settlement under Rule 167 and Chapter 42; Good Shepherd moved to modify deadlines for responding.
Trial court granted a modification delaying Good Shepherd's response until after a court-appointed auditor released his final report.
CompleteRx declared invoking Rule 167; auditor was appointed; an offer to settle for $70,000 was made with a response deadline of December 1, 2011.
CompleteRx sought mandamus relief arguing the trial court abused its discretion; court stayed the order pending disposition.
Court holds the trial court abused its discretion, and CompleteRx has no adequate remedy by appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in modifying the response deadline	CompleteRx argues Rule 167.5 limits modification to invocation/offer timing only.	Good Shepherd contends the legislature intended broader modification to preserve auditor timing.	Yes, trial court abused discretion.
Whether the remedy is adequate by appeal	CompleteRx asserts appeal cannot rectify the expedited patent of cost shifting.	Good Shepherd argues appeal is adequate.	No adequate remedy by appeal; mandamus granted.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex.2004) (abuse of discretion and standard of review in mandamus)
In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex.2005) (abuse of discretion standard and governing principles)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.1992) (limits on appellate deference to trial court decisions)
In re United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d 299 (Tex.2010) (speedy resolution and adequacy of appeals in mandamus context)
Christus Spohn Hosp. Kleberg, 222 S.W.3d 434 (Tex.2007) (statutory-rule harmony and plain-language interpretation)
Metro Dairy Queen Stores v. Dominguez, 883 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994) (rulemaking power of supreme court over procedural rules)