Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Attune Insurance Services, LLC sought mandamus relief after the trial court denied its amended motion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a to dismiss third-party claims as baseless. The third-party claims were asserted by real parties in interest Dr. Lena Speck Hopkins and Lena Speck Hopkins, M.D., P.A.
The court of appeals reviewed Attune’s petition, the real parties’ response, Attune’s reply, and the applicable law. Mandamus relief requires a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal; Texas precedent permits mandamus review when a trial court improperly denies a Rule 91a motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied Attune’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Without detailing its analysis of the third-party claims, the court concluded that Attune had not carried its burden to establish entitlement to relief concerning the denial of its Rule 91a motion.
The court also lifted the stay it had previously imposed. It expressly limited its ruling to the propriety of the trial court’s Rule 91a decision and stated that the denial was without prejudice to other substantive matters that may be raised concerning the third-party claims.
Key Takeaways
- Attune failed to establish that the trial court’s denial of its amended Rule 91a motion warranted mandamus relief.
- The court denied the mandamus petition and lifted its prior stay.
- The decision addresses only the Rule 91a ruling and does not foreclose other substantive challenges to the third-party claims.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that, although mandamus may be available to review an erroneous denial of a Rule 91a motion, the relator still bears the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion. The court’s narrow disposition leaves other potential challenges to the underlying third-party claims unresolved.