DENIED and Opinion Filed July 3, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00550-CV IN RE RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Relator Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-17946 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Smith In its June 2, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus, relator sought relief from a trial court order making certain pre-trial determinations of law. This Court initially denied relief for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Relator filed a supplement to its mandamus record and an affidavit to cure the compliance issues that we identified in our June 12, 2023 opinion, moved to supplement the mandamus record with such materials, and moved for rehearing.

Because the rules allow a relator to supplement the record without a motion, we accept the supplemental record and affidavit and deny as moot the motion to supplement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(b). Recognizing that the supplemental record and affidavit cure the technical defects that provided the basis for our conclusion that relator’s petition did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we withdraw our opinion and vacate our order of June 12, 2023, and we issue this new memorandum opinion and order of this date in their stead.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

We also deny relator’s motion for rehearing.

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE 230550F.P05

–2–