Court Opinion

ID: 9382258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 18:11:54.774625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.694904
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00066-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                 IN RE RANDALL KUBOSH

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

        On February 21, 2023, relator Randall Kubosh, proceeding pro se, filed a petition

for writ of mandamus through which he asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by

entering an order requiring relator “to disclose personal, private, and sensitive medical

information between [relator] and his brothers.” Relator also requested this Court to stay

         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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
the trial court proceedings pending the resolution of his petition for writ of mandamus.

This Court granted relator’s request, ordered the trial court proceedings to be stayed, and

requested the real party in interest, Paul Kubosh, or any others whose interest might be

directly affected by the relief sought, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.4, 52.8, 52.10(b). We have now received and reviewed Paul’s

response to the petition for writ of mandamus.

       Mandamus is 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. proceeding); 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). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two

requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the record, the response filed by Paul, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator

has not met his burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay

imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10 (“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.

                                               2
                                 CLARISSA SILVA
                                 Justice

Delivered and filed on the
17th day of March, 2023.

                             3