NUMBER 13-09-00107-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: RAUL ERNESTO LOAISIGA, M.D., P.A., AND RAUL ERNESTO LOAISIGA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1 Relators, Raul Ernesto Loaisiga, M.D., P.A., and Raul Ernesto Loaisiga, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for temporary relief in the above cause on February 25, 2009. On February 26, 2009, the Court granted the emergency motion for temporary relief and further requested that the real parties in interest, Tania Jalil, M.D., P.A., Tania Jalil, and Syed Jalil, by and through counsel, file a response to relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. Real parties in interest have now filed an “Emergency

A28. .dX ( T)W P “(E e he e S n d1 e n ny ig eh, etifre l c o u t rm a y h a n d d o w n a n o po n n i b u t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o d Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Relator’s [sic] Motion for Temporary Relief.”

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the emergency motion for temporary relief, and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. We note with disapproval that the petition for writ of mandamus, appendix, and record filed by relators was misleading and failed to comply with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (k); 52.7(a); see also id. 52.11 (discussing groundless petitions or misleading statements or records).

In the instant case, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus failed to meet the requirements of the appellate rules. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider filed by the real parties in interest is GRANTED. The stay previously imposed by this Court is LIFTED.

See id. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

See id. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this 27th day of February, 2009.