eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2019-03

in Re Rogelio Rodriguez ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                             NUMBER 13-19-00101-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ROGELIO RODRIGUEZ
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
Relator Rogelio Rodriguez filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay
in the above cause on March 11, 2019.         Relator seeks to compel the recusal or
disqualification of the Honorable Inna Klein, who is presiding over the trial of the
underlying case.   Relator requests that we stay the trial court proceedings pending
resolution of this petition for writ of mandamus. The real party in interest, Will Newton,
M.D., has filed a response in opposition to the petition for writ of mandamus and motion
to stay.
To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying
order is void or a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists.
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am.,
    494 S.W.3d 708
    , 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);
Walker v. Packer,
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). We determine
the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review
against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co.,
    450 S.W.3d 524
    , 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig.
proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
    Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136
    . As applicable to this
case, the denial of a motion to recuse can be reviewed only on appeal from a final
judgment; however, the denial of a motion to disqualify is reviewed by mandamus and
may be appealed in accordance with other law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j); In re O'Connor,
    92 S.W.3d 446
    , 450 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding); In re Union Pac. Res. Co.,
    969 S.W.2d 427
    , 428 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); In re Wilhite,
    298 S.W.3d 754
    , 757 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the record and applicable law, the motion for stay, and the response to the petition for writ
of mandamus and motion for stay, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to
obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay
without prejudice.
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed the
11th day of March, 2019.
2