Court Opinion

ID: 9401789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 06:08:32.119563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.250934
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed June 12, 2023

                                     S  In The
                               Court of Appeals
                        Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 No. 05-23-00550-CV

          IN RE RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Relator

           Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-17946

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
                      Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Kennedy
                                Opinion by Justice Smith
      Before the Court is relator’s June 2, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus

wherein relator seeks relief from a trial court order making certain pre-trial

determinations of law.

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

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In

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

proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record

to show it is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)

(orig. proceeding).
      Relator’s record does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. The documents contained in relator’s record are neither certified nor

sworn copies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Certified copies may be

ordered from the appropriate court clerk. See In re Hamilton, No. 05-19-01458-CV,

2020 WL 64679, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem.

op.). Documents become sworn copies when they are attached to an affidavit or to

an unsworn declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the person making the

affidavit or unsworn declaration has personal knowledge that the copies of the

documents attached are correct copies of the originals. See id.; see also TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001. Relator included in its petition a certification

from its attorney that does not invoke the penalty of perjury stating that “the

documents contained in this Mandamus Record are true and correct copies filed in

their respective courts pursuant to 52.7(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure.” We conclude that the attorney’s certification is insufficient to make the

documents included in the record sworn copies. See In re La Energia Nortena, LLC,

No. 05-22-01272-CV, 2023 WL 3579442, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 22, 2023,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

      Additionally, the order from which relator seeks mandamus relief refers to a

relevant hearing, but relator did not include a properly authenticated reporter’s

record of any relevant testimony or a statement that no testimony was adduced in

                                        –2–
connection with the matter complained. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2). Without a

sufficient record, relator has failed to carry its burden.

      Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

                                             /Craig Smith/
                                             CRAIG SMITH
                                             JUSTICE

230550F.P05

                                          –3–