NUMBER 13-15-00557-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE LOVE ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.,
LOVE PARTNERSHIP INTERESTS, L.P., AND KENNETH A. LOVE
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 1
Relators, Love Enterprises, L.L.C., Love Partnership Interests, L.P., and Kenneth
A. Love, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief in the above
cause on November 24, 2015. Through this original proceeding, relators sought to
compel the trial court to vacate its November 23, 2015 order denying relators’ motion to
compel the depositions of John Spellmann, individually and as executor of the estate of
Velma Spellmann, Gerald Lewis Sheehan Jr., Jane Lynn Sheehan Michaels, and Lorene
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
H. Koopmann. Through their emergency motion, relators sought to stay litigation and the
trial of this matter that was currently set for December 7, 2015. Real parties in interest
John Spellmann, individually and as executor of the estate of Velma Spellmann, Gerald
Lewis Sheehan Jr., Jane Lynn Sheehan Michaels, Ralph Koopmann, and Karen M.
Koenig filed a response and objection to relators’ emergency motion for stay. This Court
granted relators’ motion for emergency relief and ordered the trial court proceedings to
be stayed and requested that the real parties in interest, or any others whose interest
would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of
mandamus.
Relators have now filed a motion to dismiss this original proceeding with prejudice.
According to the motion, the parties have settled and compromised the issues raised in
this original proceeding. Relators thus request that we dismiss this original proceeding
with prejudice.
The Court, having examined and fully considered relators’ motion to dismiss with
prejudice, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. Accordingly, the Court
LIFTS the stay previously imposed in this cause, GRANTS relators’ motion to dismiss
with prejudice, and DISMISSES this cause with prejudice. Pending motions, if any, are
DISMISSED as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
16th day of December, 2015.
2