In Re Mujtaba Ali KhanAppeal from 284th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-14-00028-CV _________________ IN RE MUJTABA ALI KHAN ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this original mandamus proceeding Mujtaba Ali Khan ( Khan ) contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a show cause hearing for alleged violations of two temporary injunction orders ( the temporary injunction orders ). See Xenon Anesthesia of Tex. P.L.L.C. v. Xenon Health L.L.C., No. 0912-00553-CV, 2013 WL 1279408, at *4 (Tex. App. Beaumont Mar. 28, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). Khan argues the temporary injunction orders are void because the trial court granted Khan s motion for continuance and re-set the trial date to a later date than the trial dates contained in the temporary injunction orders. The trial court reset the trial date for February 10, 2014. Khan asks this Court to issue a 1 temporary stay of the trial court proceedings and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court (1) to vacate its order setting the show cause hearing, and (2) to dissolve the temporary injunctions. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). After reviewing the petition for writ of mandamus and the mandamus record, we conclude that the relator has not established an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); In re CI Host, Inc., 92 S.W.3d 514, 516 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R.App. P. 52.8(a). PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Opinion Delivered January 16, 2014 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 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.