Ssc Edinburg Operating Company, L. P. D/B/A Retama Manor Nursing Center - Edinburg, Wrongfully Identified as Sava Senior Care Administrative Services, L.L.C. D/B/A Retama Manor Nursing Center v. Maria Del Rosario Ortiz

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

                         NUMBER 13-12-00309-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

SSC EDINBURG OPERATING COMPANY,
L.P. D/B/A RETAMA MANOR NURSING
CENTER – EDINBURG, WRONGFULLY
IDENTIFIED AS SAVA SENIOR CARE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, L.L.C. D/B/A
RETAMA MANOR NURSING CENTER,                                         Appellant,

                                       v.

MARIA DEL ROSARIO ORTIZ,                            Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
  Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
                 Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

     Appellee, Maria del Rosario Ortiz, filed suit against appellant, SSC Edinburg

Operating Company, LP d/b/a Retama Manor Nursing Center (“SCC”) for wrongful
discharge, and defamation. SCC filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial

court denied. This appeal followed.

       The parties to this appeal have filed a joint motion to enter an agreed judgment.

The parties request this Court to enter judgment vacating the trial court’s order denying

SSC’s motion to compel arbitration and to render judgment compelling Ortiz, “to the

extent she desires to pursue her claims against [SCC], to utilize [the company’s]

Employee Dispute Resolution” (“EDR”) program. However, Rule 42.1(a)(2) permits this

Court to render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreements or to vacate the trial court’s

judgment and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance

with the agreement; we cannot do both. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), (B).

       Therefore, after considering the joint motion, it is the Court’s opinion that the

motion should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED

insofar as it requests relief that we cannot grant under the appellate rules. The motion is

GRANTED insofar as we VACATE the trial court’s order denying SCC’s motion to compel

arbitration without regard to the merits, and we REMAND the case to the trial court for

rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The joint motion does

not set out an agreement regarding costs; however, absent an agreement of the parties,

the rules of appellate procedure provide that costs are taxed against appellant. See id.

R. 42.1(d). Accordingly, costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(d). The appeal is DISMISSED.

                                                        PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
21st day of March, 2013.


                                             2