Opinion issued February 4, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-20-00041-CV
———————————
IN RE SANJAY KHANDUJA, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Sanjay Khanduja, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking
to compel the trial court to vacate its order denying relator’s motion for leave to
designate expert witnesses and to permit relator to designate two expert witnesses.1
1
The underlying case is In the Estate of R.K. Dhingra, Deceased, Cause No. 396745-
403, pending in Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jerry
W. Simoneaux Jr. presiding.
Mandamus will issue only to correct a trial court’s clear abuse of discretion
for which the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. E.g., In re Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Other than a
brief mention in the issues presented and summary of argument, relator’s petition
offers no argument or authority showing that the trial court clearly abused its
discretion or that relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. Thus, relator has
waived these arguments by not briefing them in his mandamus petition. In re Nath,
No. 14-19-00757-CV, 2019 WL 6317859, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
Nov. 26, 2019, orig. proceeding) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h)); In re Neely, No.
01-02-00355-CV, 2003 WL 164478, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 23,
2003, orig. proceeding) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h)).2
Moreover, the mandamus record does not include relator’s motion for leave
to designate expert witnesses. “A party’s right to mandamus relief generally requires
a predicate request for some action and a refusal of that request.” In re Perritt, 992
S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding). Moreover, “[e]quity generally is
not served by issuing an extraordinary writ against a trial court judge on a ground
that was never presented in the trial court and that the trial judge thus had no
opportunity to address.” E.g., In re Jarvis, 431 S.W.3d 129, 139 (Tex. App.—
2
In addition, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus does not comply with Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(d)(3), (g),
(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a), (c).
2
Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, orig. proceeding); see also In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d
506, 510 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding) (holding that relator not entitled to
mandamus relief on issue of ripeness because “record bears nary a hint that ripeness
was questioned in the proceedings below”). Without relator’s motion, the record
does not show that relator presented the grounds to the trial court that he presents on
mandamus review. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding) (“As the parties seeking relief, the Walkers had the burden of providing
this Court with a sufficient record to establish their right to mandamus relief.”).
Thus, relator has not shown that the trial court had an opportunity to address relator’s
mandamus arguments.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions
as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Goodman, and Countiss.
3