In Re Kristen Richter and Justin Herricks v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 22, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00573-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00573-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE KRISTEN RICHTER AND JUSTIN HERRICKS

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1

By petition for writ of mandamus filed on November 21, 2024, relators Kristen

Richter and Justin Herricks contend that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing

their presuit depositions under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202. See TEX. R. CIV. P.

202. Relators have also filed an emergency motion for temporary relief seeking to stay

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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). the trial court’s October 7, 2024 order authorizing those depositions. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.10.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “An improper order under Rule 202 may be set

aside by mandamus.” In re Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d 932, 933 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding)

(per curiam); see In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 420 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re

City of Tatum, 567 S.W.3d 800, 804 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2018, orig. proceeding); In re East,

476 S.W.3d 61, 64 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2014, orig. proceeding).

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

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain

mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the

emergency motion for temporary relief.

GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice

Delivered and filed on the 22nd day of November, 2024.