in Re: C&K King Enterprises, LLC D/B/A Kwik Kar Lube and Auto Care-Greenville Ave.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 20, 2018·No. 05-18-00407-CV·Published

Opinion

Denied and Opinion Filed April 20, 2018

S In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00407-CV

IN RE C&K KING ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A KWIK KAR LUBE AND AUTO CARE-

GREENVILLE AVE., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-07804

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Boatright Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in which relator complains of

the trial court’s order striking relator’s designation of responsible third parties. We deny the petition.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides:

After adequate time for discovery, a party may move to strike the designation of a responsible third party on the ground that there is no evidence that the designated person is responsible for any portion of the claimant's alleged injury or damage.

The court shall grant the motion to strike unless a defendant produces sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the designated person's responsibility for the claimant's injury or damage.

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.004(l). To prevail against a motion to strike the designation of a responsible third party, the defendant “must produce sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue regarding the RTP’s responsibility to the claimant.” Flack v. Hanke, 334 S.W.3d 251, 262 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, pet. denied). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator did not meet that burden and has, therefore, not shown the trial court abused its discretion.

Because we have determined that relator is in not entitled to the relief sought, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

/Jason Boatright/

JASON BOATRIGHT

JUSTICE

180407F.P05

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

in Re: C&K King Enterprises, LLC D/B/A Kwik Kar Lube and Auto Care-Greenville Ave., (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

in Re: C&K King Enterprises, LLC D/B/A Kwik Kar Lube and Auto Care-Greenville Ave. (in Re: C&K King Enterprises, LLC D/B/A Kwik Kar Lube and Auto Care-Greenville Ave.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Flack v. Hanke
334 S.W.3d 251 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)