In Re: Kenneth H. Archibald and Archibald & Associates, Inc. Appeal from 327th District Court of El Paso County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § IN RE: No. 08-19-00142-CV § KENNETH H. ARCHIBALD AND ARCHIBALD & ASSOCIATES, INC. AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN § MANDAMUS RELATORS. § § MEMORANDUM OPINION Relators, Kenneth H. Archibald and Archibald and Associates, Inc., filed a mandamus petition against the Honorable Linda Y. Chew, Judge of the 327th District Court of El Paso County, Texas. Relators request that the Court order Respondent to grant Relators’ motion to strike the intervention of the Medical Protective Company (MedPro) in cause number 2015-DCV2669, styled El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group, P.A. (EPOSG), and Brett Henderson, M.D. v. Kenneth H. Archibald and Archibald & Associates, Inc. Alternatively, Relators ask that the Court order Respondent to grant their motion to sever MedPro’s claims from the underlying case. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Generally, mandamus relief is appropriate only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, and where the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011)(orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Insurance Company of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004)(orig. proceeding). The burden is on relator to show it is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Ford Motor Company, 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2005)(orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)(orig. proceeding). After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude that Relators have failed to show that they are entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. June 14, 2019 YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ. Palafox, J., Not Participating -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.