IN RE: C&K KING ENTERPRISES (2018)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is relator's petition for writ of mandamus in which relator complains of the trial court's order striking relator's designation of responsible third parties. We deny the petition.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides:

After adequate time for discovery, a party may move to strike the designation of a responsible third party on the ground that there is no evidence that the designated person is responsible for any portion of the claimant's alleged injury or damage. The court shall grant the motion to strike unless a defendant produces sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the designated person's responsibility for the claimant's injury or damage.

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.004(l). To prevail against a motion to strike the designation of a responsible third party, the defendant “must produce sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue regarding the RTP's responsibility to the claimant.” Flack v. Hanke, 334 S.W.3d 251, 262 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, pet. denied). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator did not meet that burden and has, therefore, not shown the trial court abused its discretion.

Because we have determined that relator is in not entitled to the relief sought, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

JASON BOATRIGHT JUSTICE