NUMBER 13-21-00026-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE HYUNDAM INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, LTD.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1
Relator Hyundam Industrial Company, Ltd. filed a petition for writ of mandamus
through which it seeks to compel the trial court to (1) vacate its January 13, 2021 order
compelling discovery, and (2) strike specified interrogatories and requests for production.
Relator has filed a special appearance in the underlying personal injury and product
liability lawsuit and contends that the discovery at issue is not limited to jurisdictional facts,
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so,” but “[w]hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case”);
id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
but instead improperly extends to the merits of the litigation.
Mandamus is both an extraordinary remedy and a discretionary one. In re Garza,
544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain relief by writ
of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order is void or a clear abuse
of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of
Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); 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). “[A] party will not have an adequate remedy
by appeal when the appellate court would not be able to cure the trial court’s discovery
error.” Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 843.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a provides that any party may file a special
appearance “for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person
or property of the defendant on the ground that such party or property is not amenable to
process issued by the courts of this State.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 120a(1). Rule 120a specifically
provides for jurisdictional discovery, see id. R. 120a(3), and that “[d]iscovery is limited to
matters directly relevant to the issue” of jurisdiction. In re Doe, 444 S.W.3d 603, 608 (Tex.
2014) (orig. proceeding); see Nationwide Distribution Servs., Inc. v. Jones, 496 S.W.3d
221, 228 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (“Merits-based discovery should
not be compelled from a specially appearing defendant before ruling on the jurisdictional
challenge.”); In re Stern, 321 S.W.3d 828, 840–41 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010,
orig. proceeding) (“We conclude that Rule 120a(3) by its plain language authorizes
2
discovery by a party prior to a ruling on a special appearance only with respect to facts
‘essential to justify his opposition’ to the special appearance.”).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response filed by the real party in interest, Paul Swacina, as successor guardian of
the person and estate of Johari Kibibi Powell, an incapacitated person, and as next friend
of D.A.P., D.A.C., and D.A.C., minor children, and the reply filed by relator, is of the
opinion that relator has failed to meet its burden to obtain relief. First, we note that relator
has denied having any information or documents responsive to the discovery requests at
issue here. Second, we have carefully examined the record, and in view of the United
States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
Nos. 19-368 & 19-369, 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1026–28, 209 L. Ed. 2d 225 (Mar. 25, 2021), we
cannot agree that the jurisdictional analysis excludes the discovery at issue here.
Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b)
(“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case
is finally decided.”). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed on the
10th day of June, 2021.
3