in Re Benevis, LLC, Dentistry of Brownsville, P.C., and Kool Smiles, P.C.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided July 22, 2015·No. 13-15-00296-CV·Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-15-00296-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE BENEVIS, LLC, DENTRISTRY OF BROWNSVILLE, P.C., AND KOOL SMILES, P.C.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relators, Benevis, LLC, Dentistry of Brownsville, P.C., and Kool Smiles, P.C., filed

a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay in the above cause on

July 7, 2015. Through this original proceeding, relators contend that the trial court abused

its discretion in ordering amendments to a protective order.

1 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.”); Id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must

show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by

appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus

relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003)

(orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that

is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or

if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re

Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam). The adequacy of an appellate remedy must be determined by balancing the

benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256

S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). A discovery order that compels

production beyond the rules of procedure is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus

is the proper remedy. In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex. 2009) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the response filed by the real parties in interest, 2 and the applicable law, is of the opinion

2 The real parties in interest herein are Paula Antu as next friend of E.A., a minor; Scarlett Ayala as next friend of X.U., a minor; Guadalupe Cepeda as next friend of O.C., a minor, Ana Laura Cornejo as next friend of J.C.C., a minor; Marior Cuellar and Priscilla Trujillo as next friends of A.C., a minor; Maria Gaytan as next friend of F.T., a minor; Elizabeth Gonzalez and Marco Reyes as next friends of K.R., a minor; Francisca Guzman as next friend of A.G., a minor; Ismael and Isabel Maldonado as next friends of J.M., a minor; Freisi Olivar as next friend of A.S.II, a minor; Rary Rosales as next friend of D.M., a minor; Reynol Salinas as next friend of R.S.Jr., a minor; Anahy Alanis as next friend of J.V., a minor; Esmeralda Caro as next friend of K.D.L, a minor; Mary Chaves as next friend of T.C., a minor; Gracie Fuentes as next friend of B.F., a minor; Maricela and Jorge Garza as next friends of B.G., a minor; Claudia and George Lopez as next friends of A.L., a minor; Esmeralda Lopez as next friend of J.L., a minor; Dalia Lopez and Jorge Sauceda as next friends of D.S., a minor; Jose and Norma Montoya as next friends of I.M., a minor; Mayra

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

in Re Benevis, LLC, Dentistry of Brownsville, P.C., and Kool Smiles, P.C., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

in Re Benevis, LLC, Dentistry of Brownsville, P.C., and Kool Smiles, P.C. (in Re Benevis, LLC, Dentistry of Brownsville, P.C., and Kool Smiles, P.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re CSX Corp.
124 S.W.3d 149 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
In Re Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
164 S.W.3d 379 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
In Re Team Rocket, L.P.
256 S.W.3d 257 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
In Re Deere & Co.
299 S.W.3d 819 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall
850 S.W.2d 155 (Texas Supreme Court, 1993)
Garcia v. Peeples
734 S.W.2d 343 (Texas Supreme Court, 1987)
in Re National Lloyds Insurance Company
449 S.W.3d 486 (Texas Supreme Court, 2014)