Page 1 of 3

DENY and Opinion filed July 14, 2022 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00030-CV 

IN RE MELISSA LARSEN,THE CARDIO GROUP, LLC, LARSEN 

MEDICAL, LLC D/B/A CARDIOVASCULAR DEVICES SERVICES, LLC, 

PRACTICE FREEDOM COACHING LLC, CARDIOLOGY INSTITUTE 

OF AMERICA LLC, TRACTION INTEGRATED SYSTEMS, LLC AND 

CARDIOCLOUD, LLC, Relators 

Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. DC-18-05693, DC-21-04344 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Schenck 

Before the Court are relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and real party in 

interest AC Square’s request for sanctions. The petition challenges three 

December 20, 2021 orders compelling relators to respond to requests for 

production and to produce documents to AC Square. 

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

clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate appellate remedy. In re 
Page 2 of 3

Copart, Inc., 619 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re 

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

Based on our review of relators’ petition and mandamus record, AC 

Square’s response and supplemental record, and relators’ reply, we conclude 

relators have failed to demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). 

We also lift the stay issued by this Court’s January 11, 2022 order, staying 

enforcement of the trial court’s challenged December 20, 2021 orders. 

In its response to relator’s petition, AC Square requests that relators be 

sanctioned pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.11, which provides: 

On motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may—

after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond—impose just 

sanctions on a party or attorney who is not acting in good faith as 

indicated by any of the following: 

(a) filing a petition that is clearly groundless; 

(b) bringing the petition solely for delay of an underlying 

proceeding; 

(c) grossly misstating or omitting an obviously important and 

material fact in the petition or response; or 

(d) filing an appendix or record that is clearly misleading 

because of the omission of obviously important and material 

evidence or documents. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.11. 
Page 3 of 3

AC Square alleges that relators’ petition and supporting appendix contain 

several misstatements and omissions of obviously important and material facts and 

documents, that relators’ have filed numerous groundless petitions, and that the 

petition in this case was filed for the sole purpose of delay. Relators responded. 

We are mindful that we must “exercise the discretion afforded us by Rule 

52.11 with caution and only after careful deliberation.” See In re Lerma, 144 

S.W.3d 21, 26 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, orig. proceeding). 

We find that relators’ petition did include statements unsupported or 

contradicted by its appendix and that they did omit relevant facts and documents 

from the petition and appendix. Further, we find that judgment debtor relators’ 

failure to make any payment towards the judgment and relators’ failure to produce 

any responsive documents as of the time the petition was filed, as well as the 

timeline and objections regarding AC Square’s pursuit of document production 

indicative of intent to delay the underlying proceedings and recovery of the 

judgment by AC Square. 

While we find relators’ actions concerning and caution relators against such 

continued conduct, we decline to impose sanctions in this case. 

220030F.P05 

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE