In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-18-00156-CV
________________________
MUKESH BHAKTA, APPELLANT
V.
KRISU HOSPITALITY, LLC, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 223rd District Court
Gray County, Texas
Trial Court No. 38,934; Honorable Phil N. Vanderpool, Presiding
May 18, 2018
ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
TRAP 24 PRELIMINARY RELIEF
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Pending before this court is Appellant’s Motion for TRAP 24 Relief, filed by Mukesh
Bhakta, Appellant herein and the judgment debtor in the proceeding below, seeking (1)
an order from this court directing the trial court, or its district clerk, to accept the filing of
Bhakta’s Notice of Deposit in Lieu of Bond, including as an attachment to that notice a
copy of Bhakta’s affidavit concerning his net worth, (2) a stay of any proceedings designed
to enforce the judgment the subject of this appeal, and (3) a stay of an ancillary lawsuit
(Cause No. 39,041, 223rd District Court, Gray County, Texas) brought by Appellee, Krisu
Hospitality, LLC, pursuant to the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. See TEX. BUS.
& COM. CODE ANN. § 24.001-.013 (West 2015 & West Supp. 2017). The relief requested
is denied.
Bhakta’s request that this court direct the trial court, or its district clerk, to accept
the filing of Bhakta’s Notice of Deposit in Lieu of Bond and Bhakta’s affidavit concerning
his net worth is a request in the nature of a proceeding seeking mandamus relief. The
requirements for a petition for mandamus relief are set forth in Rule 52.3 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Even if we were to liberally
construe Bhakta’s motion as a petition seeking such relief, the motion falls woefully short
because it fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 52.3. Furthermore, as a general rule,
mandamus is not available to compel a trial court to perform an act if the action has not
first been requested and then refused by the trial court. See In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d
444, 446 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) (holding that a party’s right to mandamus relief
generally requires a predicate request for action and a refusal of that request). Moreover,
this court does not have mandamus jurisdiction to direct the district clerk to accept
Bhakta’s filing as such an order would have to originate from the trial court. In re
Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding)
(recognizing that for a district clerk to fall within appellate court’s jurisdictional reach, a
relator must show that issuance of a writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce the
appellate court’s jurisdiction).
Bhakta’s request that this court “stay” proceedings to enforce the judgment the
subject of this appeal and that it “stay” proceedings in the ancillary lawsuit brought
pursuant to the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act are likewise inappropriate. The
2
procedure by which a judgment debtor may supersede the enforcement of a judgment
are well defined in Rule 24.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Where, as here,
the judgment creditor has filed a contest of the judgment debtor’s claimed net worth, this
court’s authority is limited to reviewing the trial court’s ruling. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(a).
Because Bhakta has requested relief that this court cannot grant at this time,
Appellant’s Motion for TRAP 24 Relief is denied.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
3