in Re: Raul Ernesto Loaisiga, M.D., P.A. and Raul Ernesto Loaisiga

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 27, 2009
• Docket: 13-09-00107-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-09-00107-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: RAUL ERNESTO LOAISIGA, M.D., P.A., AND RAUL ERNESTO LOAISIGA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1

Relators, Raul Ernesto Loaisiga, M.D., P.A., and Raul Ernesto Loaisiga, filed a

petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for temporary relief in the above

cause on February 25, 2009. On February 26, 2009, the Court granted the emergency

motion for temporary relief and further requested that the real parties in interest, Tania Jalil,

M.D., P.A., Tania Jalil, and Syed Jalil, by and through counsel, file a response to relators’

petition for writ of mandamus. Real parties in interest have now filed an “Emergency

A28. .dX ( T)W P “(E e he e S n d1 e n ny ig eh, etifre l c o u t rm a y h a n d d o w n a n o po n n i b u t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o d Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Relator’s [sic] Motion for Temporary Relief.”

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

the emergency motion for temporary relief, and the response thereto, is of the opinion that

relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. We note with disapproval

that the petition for writ of mandamus, appendix, and record filed by relators was

misleading and failed to comply with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (k); 52.7(a); see also id. 52.11 (discussing groundless

petitions or misleading statements or records).

In the instant case, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus failed to meet the

requirements of the appellate rules. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider filed by the real

parties in interest is GRANTED. The stay previously imposed by this Court is LIFTED.

See id. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is

effective until the case is finally decided.”). The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

See id. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this 27th day of February, 2009.