TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-02-00136-CV
Armando M. Garza, et al., Appellants
v.
Gray & Becker, P.C., Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. GN104188, HONORABLE PAUL DAVIS, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM
Appellee, Gray & Becker, filed a motion to strike appellants' amended notice of appeal and a motion for sanctions. Gray & Becker contends that (1) appellants violated this Court's order of June 21, 2002, by including Carlos Pena in their amended notice of appeal filed June 28, 2002; (2) Ricardo De la Garza, Rogelio Santos, Daniel L. Mendiola, and Joe A. Gonzalez, individuals included in the June 28 amended notice of appeal, were never designated as appellants in the original notice of appeal, and further, Mendiola and Gonzalez were not parties to the underlying judgment; and finally, (3) appellants are now improperly attempting to add "literally hundreds of appellants" in their amended notice of appeal.
Regarding the inclusion of Carlos Pena, appellants reply that there are two individuals named Carlos Pena, one of whom settled with Gray & Becker and another whom did not. The Carlos Pena that settled with Gray & Becker was dismissed from this appeal on June 21. The Carlos Pena complained of here did not settle with Gray & Becker, was a party to the underlying lawsuit, and is properly included as an appellant in this appeal.
Gray & Becker also complains about the inclusion of De la Garza, Santos, Mendiola and Gonzalez in the amended notice of appeal. They contend that these four individuals were not parties to the underlying judgment. Appellants agree that Gonzalez and Mendiola were never parties to the underlying lawsuit and should be dismissed. Accordingly, we will dismiss Gonzalez and Mendiola from this appeal. However, regarding De la Garza and Santos, appellants contend they were parties to the underlying lawsuit, were included in the original notice of appeal filed in March 2002, and are proper appellants. We agree with appellants. The record reflects that they were parties to the underlying judgment and were listed as appellants in the March 2002 notice of appeal.
Finally, we disagree with Gray & Becker's contention that by filing the amended notice of appeal, appellants are seeking to add hundreds of appellants. The notice of appeal submitted in March 2002 lists hundreds of appellants. Our review of the amended notice of appeal does not confirm Gray & Becker's assertion that more parties were added in the amended notice of appeal.
We dismiss Joe A. Gonzalez and Daniel L. Mendiola from this appeal for want of jurisdiction. The other appellants' claims remain pending in this Court. We overrule Gray & Becker's motion to strike the June 28 amended notice of appeal and we overrule the motion for sanctions.
It is ordered August 16, 2002.
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel
Do Not Publish