In Re Rhame & Gorrell Wealth Management, LLC Appeal 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. 09-18-00431-CV _________________ IN RE RHAME & GORRELL WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18-10-13801 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a mandamus petition, Rhame & Gorrell Wealth Management, LLC, argues the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the real party in interest, Bogart Wealth, LLC, to conduct discovery exceeding the limited discovery trial courts are authorized to permit before ruling on motions to dismiss filed under the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 27.006(b) (West 2015). Relator requests a stay of the trial court’s order allowing one deposition, which requires Rhame & Gorrell to produce a corporate representative 1 and a list of clients that Bogart Wealth’s former employee, George Musselman, contacted after he began working for Rhame & Gorrell. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a). To obtain mandamus relief, Rhame & Gorrell must show the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that it has no adequate remedy by appeal. See 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). On the current record before us, we conclude that Rhame & Gorrell has failed to establish the trial court clearly abused its discretion by ordering the discovery it now seeks to avoid. Accordingly, Rhame & Gorrell’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). Its motion for temporary relief is also denied as moot. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on November 19, 2018 Opinion Delivered November 20, 2018 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, 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.
