in Re: Venky Venkatraman

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 2, 2022
Docket05-22-00745-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re: Venky Venkatraman (in Re: Venky Venkatraman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re: Venky Venkatraman, (Tex. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Deny and Opinion filed August 2, 2022

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00745-CV

IN RE VENKY VENKATRAMAN, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-03588

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Myers

Before the Court is relator’s August 1, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus

challenging the trial court’s orders entered on or about July 8, 2022 and dated July

7, 2022, denying several of relator’s motions.1 Relator contends the trial court

denied relator due process by entering the orders without conducting a hearing on

1 Relator challenges the trial court’s orders denying relator’s Amended Motion to Compel Depositions; Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm that Stephen D. Skinner formed an Attorney-Client Relationship with Witnesses Sakshi Venkatraman and Smrithi Venkatraman, Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Sergio Flores and Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff’s Amended Emergency Motion to Compel Deposition and Motion for Sanctions for Abuse of Discovery; and Amended Motion for Continuance.

Page 1 of 2 the merits, and the orders were entered after relator had given notice of and filed a

motion to recuse.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re

Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

Based on our review of the petition and record, we conclude relator has

failed to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny

the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

220745f.p05 /s/ Lana Myers LANA MYERS JUSTICE

Page 2 of 2

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

Related

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re: Venky Venkatraman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-venky-venkatraman-texapp-2022.