Court Opinion

ID: 2924689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:05:29.73136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:13.479585
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-08-136-CV

                                      COURT OF APPEALS

                            THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI- EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

      IN RE: COLUMBIA VALLEY HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, L.P.
           D/B/A VALLEY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
_____________________________________________________________

                On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
_____________________________________________________________

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                     Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Vela
                         Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

        Relator, Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P. d/b/a Valley Regional Medical

Center, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge, the Honorable Benjamin

Euresti, Jr., presiding judge of the 107th Judicial District Court of Cameron County, Texas,

and/or the presiding judge of the 404th District Court of Cameron County,1 to vacate his

February 7, 2008 order denying relator’s Motion to Disqualify and Recuse counsel for real

        1
          Relator notes that although plaintiffs’ suit was filed and is currently pending in the 404th District
Court of Cam eron County, the Honorable Benjam in Euresti, Jr., judge of the 107th District Court, presided
over relator’s Motion to Recuse.
parties-in-interest, Magallanes & Hinojosa, P.C. (“the firm”), in trial court cause number

2006-06-2741-G in the 404th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. The trial court

denied the relator’s motion to disqualify after a hearing on February 7, 2008.

        On April 8, 2008, real parties-in-interest2 and the firm filed a response. On April 18,

2008, relator filed a Reply Brief in support of its petition for writ of mandamus.

        We have reviewed the petition for writ of mandamus, response, reply, and record

of the February 7, 2008 hearing. We conclude that the firm established that it took

sufficient precautions to guard against any disclosure of confidences by its legal assistant,

who was formerly employed by counsel for relator.3 Accordingly, we conclude that the

relator has not shown a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law.

        Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed March 13, 2008, is DENIED.

                                                            PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 6th day of November, 2008.

        2
           Real parties-in-interest (plaintiffs below) are Yvonne T. Leal and Alberto B. Leal, Individually and
as next friends of Markus T. Leal, a m inor.

        3
         See In re Amer. Home Prod. Corp., 985 S.W .2d 68, 75 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Phoenix
Founders, Inc. v. Marshall, 887 S.W .2d 831, 835 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding); Grant v. Thirteenth Court
of Appeals, 888 S.W .2d 466, 467 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding).