in Re McClelland & Hine, Inc.
13-16-00527-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Relator McClelland & Hine, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to: (1) vacate two trial-court orders (May 27 and Sept. 27, 2016) compelling it to respond to discovery; (2) require the trial court to rule on and grant relator’s motion for summary judgment dismissing real parties’ claims with prejudice; and (3) set a hearing on relator’s pending motion for sanctions.
- Real parties in interest are RZQ, L.L.C., Hameed Quraishi, M.D., Rafath Quraishi, M.D., Aadam Quraishi, M.D., and Advanced Medical Imaging, L.L.C.
- Relator also sought an emergency stay to preserve the status quo and this Court’s jurisdiction.
- The mandamus standard requires relator to show a clear abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy.
- The Court reviewed the petition and applicable law and concluded relator failed to establish entitlement to mandamus relief.
- The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for emergency stay; no written opinion was required or provided beyond the memorandum disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in ordering discovery responses | Trial court acted properly; discovery should proceed (real parties) | Relator argued orders compelling discovery were erroneous and reviewable by mandamus | Court denied mandamus — relator failed to show entitlement to relief |
| Whether trial court must rule on and enter relator’s summary judgment | Relator argued trial court’s failure to rule warranted mandamus directing entry of summary judgment | Real parties implicitly contended normal appellate remedies suffice; trial court discretion on timing | Court denied relief; did not compel ruling or entry of summary judgment |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate because no adequate appellate remedy exists | Relator argued appeal would be inadequate and mandamus necessary | Real parties/record supported that appellate review, not mandamus, was appropriate | Court found relator did not meet burden to show lack of adequate appellate remedy; denied mandamus |
| Whether emergency stay should issue to preserve jurisdiction/status quo | Relator sought emergency stay to preserve status quo pending mandamus | Respondents opposed stay; Court weighs stay against mandamus standards | Court denied emergency stay |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus is extraordinary; relator bears burden to show abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy)
- In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus relief proper to correct clear abuse of discretion)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator bears burden in mandamus proceedings)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. 2014) (assessing adequacy of appellate remedy when considering mandamus)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (balancing benefits of mandamus review against detriments)