Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00119-CV
IN RE TAYMAX FITNESS, LLC; SP Pavilions, LLC; RPD Property
Management Company, LLC; and Executive Security Systems, Inc. of America
Original Mandamus Proceedings 1
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Dissenting Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 7, 2014
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
Relators Taymax Fitness, LLC; SP Pavilions, LLC; RPD Property Management Company,
LLC and Executive Security Systems, Inc. of America filed this petition for writ of mandamus
complaining of two trial court orders denying motions to designate Yu Masaki as a responsible
third party in the underlying personal injury litigation. The court has fully considered the petition
for writ of mandamus and the joint response filed on behalf of the real parties in interest and is of
the opinion that relators are not entitled to the relief sought.
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012-CI-01966, styled Michelle Montemayor, as Next Friend of Jordan
Escamilla, A Minor v. Taymax Fitness, LLC; SP Pavilions, LLC; RPD Property Management Company, LLC;
Transwestern Commercial Services, LLC; and Yu Masaki, pending in the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County,
Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales presiding.
04-14-00119-CV
Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which the relators have
no adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d
124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex.
1992) (orig. proceeding). We conclude relators have failed to establish the lack of an adequate
remedy at law with respect to the trial court’s denial of leave to designate Masaki as a responsible
third party. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 33.004(a) (West 2008); In re Unitec
Elevator Servs. Co., 178 S.W.3d 53, 64-66 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig.
proceeding). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
-2-