In Re: Dr. Robert Tafel v. the State of Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed August 30, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-01014-CV

IN RE DR. ROBERT TAFEL; ROBERT E. TAFEL, D.D.S., PA D/B/A BEAR
CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; BUCKNER MARKETPLACE DENTAL,
PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; PECAN PLAZA
DENTAL, PA; PIONEER DENTAL, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY
DENTISTRY; WESTCLIFF DENTAL. PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY
DENTISTRY; SPRING VALLEY CROSSING DENTAL. PA D/B/A BEAR
CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; PLAZA DE ORO DENTAL, PA D/B/A
BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; TORRE VISTA DENTAL, PA
D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; TOWN NORTH DENTAL,
PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY; BEAR CREEK FAMILY
DENTISTRY, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY DENTISTRY;
MESQUITE CROSSING DENTAL, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY
DENTISTRY; CW VILLAGE DENTAL, PA D/B/A BEAR CREEK FAMILY
DENTISTRY; AND BLT SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC F/K/A BLT
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-11407

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Garcia
Before the Court is relators’ August 27, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.

Upon review, relators’ petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.1, 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.3(i), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2).

For example, relators’ appendix and record are deficient. Relators bear the

burden to provide the Court with a record that is sufficient to show they are entitled

to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding). Relators failed to meet this burden because the documents included in

their appendix and record are not certified or sworn copies as required by the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1);

In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758–59 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding).

Certified copies may be ordered from the appropriate court clerk. See In re Hamilton,

No. 05-19-01458-CV, 2020 WL 64679, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.). Documents become sworn copies when they are attached

to an affidavit or to an unsworn declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the

person making the affidavit or unsworn declaration has personal knowledge that the

copies of the documents attached are correct copies of the originals. See id.; see also

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001. Relators attempted to authenticate

the documents in their appendix and record with an attorney certification that fails

to comply with the above requirements.

–2–
Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

/Dennise Garcia/
DENNISE GARCIA
241014F.P05 JUSTICE

–3–