In Re: Dr. Robert Tafel v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 30, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-01014-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed August 30, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-01014-CV

IN RE DR. ROBERT TAFEL; ROBERT E. TAFEL, D.D.S., PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; BUCKNER MARKETPLACE DENTAL, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; PECAN PLAZA DENTAL, PA; PIONEER DENTAL, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; WESTCLIFF DENTAL. PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; SPRING VALLEY CROSSING DENTAL. PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; PLAZA DE ORO DENTAL, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; TORRE VISTA DENTAL, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; TOWN NORTH DENTAL, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; MESQUITE CROSSING DENTAL, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; CW VILLAGE DENTAL, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; AND BLT SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC F/K/A BLT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-11407

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Before the Court is relators’ August 27, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.

Upon review, relators’ petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.1, 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.3(i), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2).

For example, relators’ appendix and record are deficient. Relators bear the

burden to provide the Court with a record that is sufficient to show they are entitled

to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding). Relators failed to meet this burden because the documents included in

their appendix and record are not certified or sworn copies as required by the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1);

In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758–59 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding).

Certified copies may be ordered from the appropriate court clerk. See In re Hamilton,

No. 05-19-01458-CV, 2020 WL 64679, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.). Documents become sworn copies when they are attached

to an affidavit or to an unsworn declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the

person making the affidavit or unsworn declaration has personal knowledge that the

copies of the documents attached are correct copies of the originals. See id.; see also

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001. Relators attempted to authenticate

the documents in their appendix and record with an attorney certification that fails

to comply with the above requirements.

–2– Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

/Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA 241014F.P05 JUSTICE

–3–