in Re Advanced Powder Solutions, Inc. ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
01-15-00758-cv
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
9/3/2015 4:42:02 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
No. 01-15-00758-CV CLERK
______________________________________________________________ _________
FILED IN
IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS1st COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
9/3/2015 4:42:02 PM
____________________
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
In Re Advanced Powder Solutions, Inc.
Relator,
____________________
Original Proceeding from the 125th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2014-16020
The Honorable Kyle Carter, Presiding
____________________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
____________________
Donald M. Hudgins (10149000)
dhudgins@hudgins-law.com
Michael D. Hudgins (00787731)
mhudgins@hudgins-law.com
Steven F. Hudgins (00793993)
shudgins@hudgins-law.com
Nicole James Petrelli (24035568)
npetrelli@hudgins-law.com
THE HUDGINS LAW FIRM, P.C.
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2000
Houston, Texas 77046
Telephone (713) 623-2550
Facsimile (713) 623-2793
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR
ADVANCED POWDER SOLUTIONS, INC.
TEMPORARY RELIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
________________________________________________________________________ ________
IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Pursuant to Rule 52.3(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the
following is a list of interested parties for the convenience of the Court.
Advanced Powder Solutions, Inc. ................................................................. Relator
Donald M. Hudgins
dhudgins@hudgins-law.com
Michael D. Hudgins
mhudgins@hudgins-law.com
Steven F. Hudgins
shudgins@hudgins-law.com
Nicole James Petrelli (24035568)
npetrelli@hudgins-law.com
THE HUDGINS LAW FIRM, P.C.
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2000
Houston, Texas 77046
Telephone (713) 623-2550
Facsimile (713) 623-2793 .......................... Trial and Appellate Counsel for Relator
Charles A. Sturm
csturm@sturmlegal.com
Sturm Law, PLLC
723 Main Street, Suite 330
Houston, Texas 77002 ..................................................... Trial Counsel for Relator
Tremaine Hewitt ......................................................................Real Party in Interest
Kurt Arnold
karnold@arnolditkin.com
Kyle Findley
kfindley@arnolditkin.com
Arnold & Itkin LLP
6009 Memorial Drive
Houston, Texas 77007 ................................. Trial Counsel for Real Party in Interest
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ....................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..............................................................................vi
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................... vii
ISSUES PRESENTED........................................................................................ viii
STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................1
1. The accident..................................................................................................1
2. Plaintiff files suit...........................................................................................1
3. Plaintiff’s experts. .........................................................................................2
4. Defendant requests Rule 204.1 exam. ...........................................................3
SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................4
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES .....................................................................5
1. The trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to
compel ..........................................................................................................6
a. The exam will produce relevant
evidence. .............................................................................................6
b. There is a nexus between controversy and exam .................................6
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Page
c. Not possible to obtain “the information”through
less intrusive means ............................................................................7
2. Defendant has no adequate remedy by appeal. ..............................................8
a. The order impairs substantive and procedural
rights of Defendant. ............................................................................9
b. Mandamus review affords an opportunity for helpful
direction that will prove elusive on appeal. ....................................... 10
c. Mandamus review spares private parties and the public
an utter waste of time and money on improperly
conducted proceedings. ..................................................................... 11
d. Other courts reach a similar result. .................................................... 11
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ........................................................................... 13
NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR
TEMPORARY RELIEF ....................................................................................... 14
RULE 52.3(J) CERTIFICATION ......................................................................... 14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE..................................................................... 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.............................................................................. 16
APPENDIX
Order Denying Motion for Physical Exam .......................................................Tab 1
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page(s)
Coates v. Whittington,
758 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1988). ........................................................................6
In re Jacobs,
300 S.W.3d 35 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.]
2009, orig. proceeding). ........................................................................ 10-11
In re Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc.,
435 S.W.3d 859 (Tex.App.— Dallas 2014, orig. proceeding). .................. 7, 8
In re Theusen,
No. 14–13–00174–CV, 2013 WL 1461790
(Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.]
Apr. 11, 2013, orig. proceeding). ..................................................................6
In re Transwestern Publishing Co., L.L.C.,
96 S.W.3d 501 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.]
2002, orig. proceeding). .............................................................................. 12
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004). .................................................................... 8, 9
Loffland Bros. Co. v. Downey,
822 S.W.2d 249 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.]
1993, orig. proceeding). ................................................................................9
Sherwood Lane Assocs. v. O’Neill,
782 S.W.2d 942 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.]
1990, no writ). ................................................................................................
Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Mayfield,
923 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding). ..................................... 9, 10
Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992). ........................................................................6
iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (Cont’d)
Statutes and Rules: Page
TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b)(1) ...........................................................................xi
TEX. R. CIV. P. 204.1...................................................................................... passim
v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case: This is a personal injury lawsuit that arises from burns and
other injuries Plaintiff suffered in an accident that
occurred at the premises of Relator Advanced Powder
Solutions, Inc. The dispute presented to this Court relates
to Defendant’s routine request under Rule 204.1 for an
order that would simply allow its own experts to conduct
a medical examination upon which they can base their
opinions and/or dispute the opinions to be offered by
Plaintiff’s retained medical expert whose opinions are
based on his own medical examination.
Trial Court: 125th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
Cause No. 2014-16020
The Honorable Kyle Carter
Trial Court’s
Disposition: The trial court denied Defendant’s Motion for Physical
Exam on July 17, 2015.
Parties in Trial Court: Plaintiff: Tremaine Hewitt
Defendant: Advanced Powder Solutions, Inc.
vi
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction to grant the requested relief under Texas
Government Code § 22.221, which provides that the Court of Appeals may issue “all
writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles of law”against “a judge of a district
or county court in the court of appeals district.” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b)(1).
vii
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Advanced Powder
Solutions, Inc.’s Motion for Physical Exam.
2. Whether there is an adequate remedy at law when the denial of Advanced
Powder Solutions, Inc.’s Motion for Physical Exam impairs the substantive
and procedural rights of Defendant.
viii
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This is a personal injury lawsuit that arises from burns and other injuries
Plaintiff suffered in an accident that occurred at the premises of Relator Advanced
Powder Solutions, Inc. The dispute presented to this Court relates to Defendant’s
routine request under Rule 204.1 for an order that would simply allow its own
experts to (1) conduct a medical examination upon which they can base their
opinions and/or (2) dispute the opinions to be offered by Plaintiff’s retained medical
expert whose opinions are based on his own medical examination. Here are the facts
relevant to why the trial court abused its discretion in denying the requested relief.
1. The accident.
The accident occurred on August 26, 2013. (MR at 2). At that time, Plaintiff
was working at Relator’s facility when he was injured during a blast that Plaintiff
contends was caused by one of his co-workers. (MR at 2). Plaintiff contends he
“suffered severe burns and orthopedic injuries”so serious that he was “life-flighted
from the scene.” (MR at 2). Plaintiff contends he has undergone multiple surgeries
as a result of the injuries suffered in this accident. (MR at 2). Plaintiff contends his
injuries limit his current earning capacity. (MR at 2).
2. Plaintiff files suit.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 24, 2014, to recover for “severe physical
injuries” suffered in the accident. (MR at 3). More specifically, Plaintiff seeks
1
recovery for economic and non-economic damages. (MR at 3). The economic
damages sought include “past and future economic damages”and “medical bills.”
(MR at 3). The non-economic damages include “pain and suffering, impairment,
disfigurement, [and] mental anguish”damages. (MR at 3).
3. Plaintiff’s experts.
To support his claims for economic and non-economic damages, Plaintiff
designated two separate experts: Angel M. Roman, M.D. and Kenneth McCoin,
Ph.D.
a. Angel M. Roman, M.D.
Dr. Angel Roman is Plaintiff’s medical expert, who is designated to offer
testimony regarding the following:
i Plaintiff’s “medical condition . . . as result of the
injuries he received in the incident made the basis of
this suit;”
i Projected medical cost analysis for Plaintiff’s future
medical needs and costs;
i The reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff’s medical
treatment in the past and future;
i Causation testimony as to “Plaintiff’s injuries that
resulted from this incident;”
(MR at 7). Critically, Plaintiff’s designation of Dr. Roman expressly premises the
entirety of his opinions on “his own physical evaluation.” (MR at 7) (emphasis
2
added). Dr. Roman is not disclosed as having provided any care of treatment to
Plaintiff. (MR at 7).
b. Ken McCoin.
Ken McCoin is an economist and Plaintiff designated him to testify regarding
“Plaintiff’s loss of earning capacity.” (MR at 8). As part of his analysis, Plaintiff
disclosed that McCoin will rely on Plaintiff’s “post injury earning capacity.” (MR
at 8). McCoin’s testimony is being offered in support of Plaintiff’s claim of physical
impairment and the alleged economic damages resulting from his claimed
impairment. (MR at 8).
4. Defendant requests 204.1 exam.
Pursuant to Rule 204.1, Defendants filed their motion to compel a physical
examination by: (1) Defendant’s retained plastic surgeon, Ramsey J. Choucair, M.D.
so he can provide opinions related to Plaintiff’s injuries and anticipated future
medical treatment; and (2) Ergonomic Rehabilitation of Houston (“ErgoRehab”) so
that Plaintiff can undergo a functional capacity evaluation and impairment rating in
order to determine Plaintiff’s ability to return to work. (MR 64 –136).
Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing there are less intrusive means for the
desired information— despite knowing their own retained expert would have a
benefit not afforded Defendant’s retained expert and that such benefit would bolster
his retained expert’s reliability as compared to any controverting expert designated
3
by Defendant. (MR 137 – 176). Nevertheless, on July 17, 2015, the trial court
denied Defendant’s motion (MR 190), leaving Defendant no alternative but to seek
mandamus relief.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Mandamus relief exists to remedy wrongs where there is no an adequate
remedy on appeal. Although it is not based in equity, it is guided by equitable
principles.
There is nothing equitable about allowing one party’s expert access to
evidence while denying that opportunity to the other party. But that is what the trial
court effectively did when it summarily denied Defendant’s routine motion to
compel a physical examination under Rule 204.1 where Plaintiff seeks damages for
physical impairment, disfigurement and loss of earning capacity. Quite simply, the
denial of a routine Rule 204.1 motion constitutes a clear abuse of discretion because
“good cause” exists to support Defendant’s motion for a physical examination.
More specifically, the evidence that Defendant seeks, a physical examination, is not
only relevant to the controversy, i.e., the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and
impairment, but it is needed for Defendant to fairly defend itself against damage
claims that Plaintiff intends to prove through its own medical expert who has access
to a physical examination.
4
Mandamus relief is needed to remedy the trial court’s abuse of discretion
because an ordinary appeal does not provide an adequate remedy. This is because a
trial that is based on unequal access to critical evidence will amount to nothing more
than an “empty exercise,”which will unnecessarily subject Defendant to the cost of
a trial that is certain to be reversed on appeal. By that time, valuable resources will
have been expended that are not recoverable, the physical condition of Plaintiff will
likely have changed, and memories will certainly fade. So the passage of time alone
will deprive Defendant (via his medical expert) of equal access to critical evidence
that is relevant to a controversy (the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and physical
impairment) in this case.
Mandamus relief is needed to ensure a fair trial.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
The trial court’s denial of a routine Rule 204.1 motion to compel wrongly
blesses a trial where Plaintiff’s retained expert’s credibility and methodology is
unfairly bestowed more credibility than Defendant’s retained expert. Why?
Because— as made clear in his expert disclosure— Plaintiff’s medical expert will be
telling the jury that his opinions are based upon his own medical examination of
Plaintiff— something Defendant’s expert will not be able to do if the order is allowed
to stand. Because the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to
5
compel, which leaves Defendant without an adequate remedy at law, mandamus
relief is proper. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).
1. The trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to compel.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled in Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749
(Tex. 1988) that “good cause”for a physical examination of a plaintiff exists when
(1) the examination is relevant to the issues in controversy, (2) a reasonable
relationship or nexus exists between the controversy and examination sought, and
(3) it is not possible to obtain the information through less intrusive means. Coates,
758 S.W.2d at 751.
a. The exam will produce relevant evidence.
For the examination to be relevant, it need only be shown that it will produce,
or is likely to lead to, evidence of relevance to the case. Id. at 753; In re Theusen,
No. 14–13–00174–CV, 2013 WL 1461790, *3 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.]
Apr. 11, 2013, orig. proceeding). Here, Plaintiff seeks damages for impairment and
disfigurement and has designated a medical expert in support of this claim. (MR at
3, 7). Therefore, the examination will produce relevant evidence. Not surprisingly,
Plaintiff did not contest this element in his response. (MR at 137 –144). The first
element of good cause is satisfied.
b. There is a nexus between controversy and exam.
Because he seeks recovery for both impairment and disfigurement (MR at 3)
6
and intends to offer expert testimony in support of this claim (MR at 3-4), it is no
surprise that Plaintiff also did not challenge the existence of a nexus between the
controversy and the exam sought. (MR at 137 –144). To this end, where a party
intends to offer evidence (i.e., expert medical testimony) to support its pleadings for
damages, the nexus requirement is satisfied. See In re Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc.,
435 S.W.3d 859, 867-68 (Tex.App.— Dallas 2014, orig. proceeding). The second
element of good cause is satisfied.
c. Not possible to obtain “the information” through less intrusive
means.
Plaintiff’s response to the Rule 204.1 motion to compel focuses on the third
element; Plaintiff contends Defendant made no effort to obtain “the information”
through less intrusive means. (MR at 139 – 143). In support of this argument,
Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not pursued the deposition of his treating
physicians— a discovery tool Plaintiff self-servingly contends would be less
intrusive. But, Plaintiff— and more importantly, the trial court— ignore the reality
that “the information” sought is not simply the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating
physicians, or even his own retained medical expert. Instead, “the information”
sought— needed, in fact— is a first-hand medical examination upon which
Defendant’s retained expert can base his opinions— just like Plaintiff’s retained
expert’s intends to do. (MR 7).
7
Quite simply, it is well settled that where the intended examination is not
intrusive, invasive or unnecessarily physically uncomfortable, parties are permitted
to explore matters not covered by the opposing party’s examinations, make their
own observations, and attempt to discover facts that may contradict the opinions of
the opposing party’s expert witnesses. In re Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc., 435
S.W.3d at 870. Accordingly, because the examinations sought by Defendant are not
intrusive, invasive, or unnecessarily physically uncomfortable, they should be
allowed. To hold otherwise would deprive Defendant the right to explore and
develop evidence that supports theories that contradict the theories espoused by
Plaintiff’s retained experts and thus, deprive Defendant the right to a fair trial. The
third element of good cause is satisfied.
2. Defendant has no adequate remedy by appeal.
It is well-settled that an appellate remedy is “adequate”only when the benefits
to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.” In re Prudential Ins. Co.
of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004). Indeed, the word “adequate”is simply
a “proxy for the careful balance of jurisprudential considerations that determine”
when mandamus review is warranted. Id. at 136. And although “mandamus is not
an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles.” Id.
at 138. The determination is not abstract or formulaic, but instead is “practical and
prudential.” Id. at 136.
8
Three of Prudential’s practical and prudential considerations warrant
interlocutory intervention in this case: (1) the need to “preserve important
substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss, (2) the need for
“appellate courts to give needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise
prove elusive in appeals from final judgments,”and (3) the need to “spare private
parties and the public the time and money utterly wasted enduring eventual reversal
of improperly conducted proceedings.” See Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d
at 136.
a. The order impairs substantive and procedural rights of Defendant.
In some instances, evidentiary rulings change the balance of fairness and due
process in a trial, and in those instances, the benefits of mandamus outweigh its
detriments. Indeed, while an appeal can remedy most evidentiary mistakes, when
the error goes to “key issues” and “prevents relator’s ability to fairly try [the]
lawsuit,” the result can be so prejudicial that due process is threatened. Loffland
Bros. Co. v. Downey, 822 S.W.2d 249, 252 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1993,
orig. proceeding). A trial infected with error so serious becomes no more than an
“empty exercise”warranting mandamus relief. Id. Consequently, mandamus relief
is needed where the trial court’s order creates a distinct unfair advantage that will
compromise the defendant’s ability to “present a viable . . . defense.” See Travelers
Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 595 (Tex. 1996) (orig.
9
proceeding). For orders of this magnitude— those “so prejudicial to the defense’s
presentation of their case that due process is threatened”— mandamus is the proper
remedy. Loffland Bros. Co., 822 S.W.2d at 252.
The trial court’s order rejecting Defendant’s request for an equal opportunity
to examine Plaintiff will warp the trial of this case and make it nothing more than an
“empty exercise.” As in Travelers Indemnity, Defendant’s “litigation strategy . . .
will be unfairly hindered”by a ruling that unfairly “skews the litigation process.”
Travelers Indem. Co., 923 S.W.2d at 595. Indeed, the trial court’s decision to deny
Defendant an equal opportunity to examine Plaintiff— who seeks damages for
disfigurement and impairment— will vitiate Defendant’s ability to mount an
effective defense to these damage claims. This is because Plaintiff’s retained
medical expert will be able to bolster his opinions by boasting that his opinions are
premised upon his own personal examination of Plaintiff as contrasted to
Defendant’s retained expert whose opinions will be based on second-hand
information obtained through medical records and depositions of those who treated
Plaintiff. Mandamus review is warranted.
b. Mandamus review affords an opportunity for helpful direction
that will prove elusive on appeal.
Under Prudential, mandamus is appropriate in exceptional cases to give
needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive in appeals
from final judgments. In re Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d 35, 46 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th
10
Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding). Quite simply, a do over following a successful appeal
does not afford Defendant an equal opportunity to discover and present evidence at
trial. This is because valuable time and resources will have already been expended,
physical conditions will likely change, and memories will certainly fade. This
second factor also favors mandamus review.
c. Mandamus review spares private parties and the public an utter
waste of time and money on improperly conducted proceedings.
You can’t un-ring the bell. And an appeal cannot remedy the damage done
by an unfair trial that is certain to be reversed. Accordingly, mandamus review will
spare private and public resources that will be incurred if a trial that unfairly favors
one party’s expert over another is allowed to proceed without guidance by this Court.
Indeed, because the court acted without reference to the guiding rules and principles
applicable to motions under Rule 204.1, reversal is inevitable. Regrettably, the
erroneous ruling “radically skews the procedural dynamics of the case,”rendering a
regular appeal “inadequate.” Indeed, without mandamus relief, Defendant will be
sentenced to first incurring the expense of a trial tainted with reversible error, plus
the added expense of an appeal, before having a fair opportunity to defend itself
against the damage claims at issue. The third factor heavily favors mandamus
review.
d. Other courts reach a similar result.
The question of whether an order denying a motion to compel under Rule
11
204.1 is subject to mandamus review (because there is no adequate remedy on
appeal) has been answered affirmatively in the following cases: See In re
Transwestern Publishing Co., L.L.C., 96 S.W.3d 501, 508 (Tex.App.— Houston
[14th Dist.] 2002, orig. proceeding) (holding that because relators need to conduct
the examination before trial in order to adequately defend against Plaintiff’s
allegations and the opinions of Plaintiff’s retained expert, an appeal of the trial
court’s order after trial would not provide an adequate remedy); In re Ten Hagen
Excavating, Inc., 435 S.W.3d 859, 867-68 (Tex.App.— Dallas 2014, orig.
proceeding) (holding an appeal of an order denying a Rule 204.1 motion does not
provide an adequate remedy where the ruling restricted the defendant’s opportunity
to determine the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injury and to discover and
develop facts that may contradict the opinions of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses);
see also Sherwood Lane Assocs. v. O’Neill, 782 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex.App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ) (granting mandamus relief where trial court
denied order compelling independent psychiatric examination under prior Rule
167a). Of course, this is not surprising because the failure to provide the defendant
an equal opportunity to discover and present evidence in the context of a lawsuit
where permanent impairment is alleged is “so prejudicial to the defense’s
presentation of their case that due process is threatened.” So, mandamus relief is
needed.
12
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Mandamus relief should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
THE HUDGINS LAW FIRM
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
By: /s/ Michael D. Hudgins
Donald M. Hudgins (10149000)
dhudgins@hudgins-law.com
Michael D. Hudgins (00787731)
mhudgins@hudgins-law.com
Steven F. Hudgins (00793993)
shudgins@hudgins-law.com
Nicole James Petrelli (24035568)
npetrelli@hudgins-law.com
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2000
Houston, Texas 77046
Telephone (713) 623-2550
Facsimile (713) 623-2793
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR
13
NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
The undersigned certifies that Relator has made a diligent effort to notify
counsel for Tremaine Hewitt that it is filing a petition for writ of mandamus that is
accompanied by a motion for temporary relief. I notified counsel for Tremaine
Hewitt about the request for temporary relief by emailing a courtesy copy of this
Petition for Writ of Mandamus and copy of the Motion for Temporary Relief on this
3rd day of September 2015.
/s/ Steven F. Hudgins
Steven F. Hudgins
RULE 52.3(J) CERTIFICATION
I have reviewed the response and concluded that the factual statements in the
response are supported by competent evidence included in the appendix and/or
record.
/s/ Michael D. Hudgins
Michael D. Hudgins
14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Rule 9.4 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure because it contains 3,037 words, excluding the parts
of the response exempted by Rule 9.4.
This response also complies with the typeface requirements of Rule 9.4(e)
because it has been prepared in proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft
Word in 14 point Times New Roman font.
/s/ Michael D. Hudgins
Michael D. Hudgins
15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Petition for Mandamus and
Mandamus Record was served on the following counsel:
Kurt Arnold
karnold@arnolditkin.com
Kyle Findley
kfindley@arnolditkin.com
Arnold & Itkin LLP
6009 Memorial Drive
Houston, Texas 77007
Counsel for Real Party in Interest
Charles A. Sturm
csturm@sturmlegal.com
Sturm Law, PLLC
723 Main Street, Suite 330
Houston, Texas 77002
Counsel for Relator
via electronic mail and/or electronic service on the 3rd day of September, 2015; and
Honorable Kyle Carter
Judge, 125th Judicial Court
Harris County Courthouse
201 Caroline, 10th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Respondent
via certified mail, return receipt requested on the 3rd day of September 2015.
/s/ Michael D. Hudgins
Michael D. Hudgins
16