In re Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. and Ryder Integrated Logistics of Texas, LLC Appeal from 166th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-15-00243-CV IN RE RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC. and Ryder Integrated Logistics of Texas, LLC Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 22, 2015 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On April 22, 2015, relators Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. and Ryder Integrated Logistics of Texas, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of respondent’s orders denying Ryder’s motion to compel the oral deposition of the plaintiff, and placing restrictions on Ryder’s independent mental examination of the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury lawsuit. The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed on behalf of the real parties in interest and relators’ reply, and is of the opinion that respondent has not abused his discretion and relators are therefore not presently entitled to the relief sought. Based on the 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CI-03779, styled Denise Molina and George Duzane, Co-conservators of Rafael “Ralph” Molina and Rafael “Ralph” Molina v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc.; Ryder Integrated Logistics of Texas, LLC; and Ernesto Solis, Lucila Solis, Sonia Martin Solis, Elijah Angel Solis, and Roberto Solis Jr., Legal Heirs of the Estate of Roberto Solis Sr., pending in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr. presiding. 04-15-00243-CV mandamus record filed in this court, the respondent has specifically acknowledged relators’ ability to seek further relief from the trial court if the deposition and examination, as presently limited, prove to be inadequate for purposes of discovery. But see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 84344 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus may be appropriate to review order denying discovery which effectively denies reasonable opportunity to develop merits of the case). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM -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.
