## NUMBER 13 - 21 - 00 20 1 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE TARUNKUMAR “RAVI” MURJANI AND MURJANI INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa , and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa 1 On June 24, 2021, relator s Tarunkumar “Ravi” Murjani and Murjani Investment Group, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its June 4, 2021 order compelling relators to respond to discovery requests. 2 Relator s

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so . W hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case

. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number P

- 36,766

- A in the Probate Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, and the respondent is the Honorable JoAnne Garcia. See id . R. 52.2. We dispose of a related petition for writ of mandamus in a separate opinion issued on this same date. See In re Murjani ,2 assert that the trial court abuse d its discretion and act ed “ without plenary power and the requisite jurisdiction ” when (1) it issued a discovery order compelling the “ extensive ” production of documents ; (2) the discovery order was inconsistent with a fina l agreed order, which rendered the documents sought irrelevant; and (3) the “ document production served no other purpose but to facilitate one party’s improper and untimely efforts to contest the relief afforded through the final agreed order .” Mandamus i s an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co

. , 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am

. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that “ (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. ” In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co

. , 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceed ing); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am

. , 148 S.W.3d at 135

– 36; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts with disregard for guiding rules or principles or when it acts in an arb itrary or unreasonable

manner. In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d at 840. We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Acad., Ltd. , 625 S.W.3d 19, 25 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Essex Ins. Co

. , 450

No. 13

- 21

- 0020 0

- CV, 2021 WL _____, at *_ (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg Sept. __, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).3 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am. , 148 S.W.3d at 136. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by Raju Murjani, Individually, and Sunder Murjani, I ndividually and as
I ndependent E xecutor of the E state of Lal Rewachand Murjani, Deceased , and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator s ha ve not met their bu rden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordin gly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”)

. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

LETICIA HINO JOSA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 29th day of September , 2021.