in Re Mohammad Kotaki and Lisa L. Taylor ( 2013 )

NUMBER 13-13-00037-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE MOHAMMAD KOTAKI AND LISA L. TAYLOR
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relators, Mohammad Kotaki and Lisa L. Taylor, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus and request for emergency temporary relief in the above cause on January
24, 2013. By order issued the next day, the Court granted the request for emergency
temporary relief and stayed the trial court’s orders of July 19, 2012 and January 22,
1013, pertaining to the award of interim attorney’s fees. The Court further requested a
response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in interest, Shahin
Zaraienh, and any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought.
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.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relators subsequently filed a supplemental mandamus record, and Zaraienh filed a
response to the petition for writ of mandamus. Relators have also filed a reply brief in
support of their petition for writ of mandamus.
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, relators must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). The relators have the burden of establishing both prerequisites to
mandamus relief. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig.
proceeding). This burden is a heavy one. See In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41
(Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus, the supplemental record, the response to the petition, and the reply, is of
the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36. Accordingly, the stay previously
imposed by this Court is LIFTED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 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
Delivered and filed the
4th day of March, 2013.
2