ACCEPTED
13-15-00105-CV
THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
9/21/2015 11:58:54 AM
Dorian E. Ramirez
CLERK
CAUSE NO. 13-15-00105-CV
FILED IN
IN THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
13th COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS
CORPUS CHRISTI AND EDINBURG, TEXASCHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
9/21/2015 11:58:54 AM
DORIAN E. RAMIREZ
Clerk
CROX QUINTANILLA,
Appellant,
VS.
LAW OFFICE OF JERRY J. TREVINO, P.C. and JERRY J. TREVINO,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM
THE 347TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS,
CAUSE NO. 2013-DCV-2066-H
HONORALBE DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, PRESIDING BY ASSIGNMENT
APPELLEES’ BRIEF
J. A. CANALES
State Bar No. 03737000
CANALES & SIMONSON, P.C.
2601 Morgan Ave.-P.O. Box 5624
Corpus Christi, Texas 78465-5624
Telephone: (361) 883-0601
Telefax: (361) 884-7023
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
LAW OFFICE OF JERRY J. TRVINO, P.C.
And JERRY J. TREVINO
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38, Appellees submit the following list of
the parties, their designation, and their counsel in this appeal.
Appellant: Crox Quintanilla
Counsel for Appellant: Criag S. Smith
LAW PFFOCE PF CRAIG S. SMITH
14493 S.P.I.D., Suite A; P.M.B. 240
Corpus Christi, Texas 78418
Telephone: 361.728.8037
Email: csslaw@stx.rr.com
Appellate Counsel
Rene Rodriguez
LAW OFFICES OF RENE RODRIGUEZ
433 South Tancahua
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: 361.882.1919
Telefax: 361.882.2042
Trial and Appellate Counsel
Appellees: Law Office of Jerry J. Trevino, P.C. and
Jerry J. Trevino
Counsel for Appellees: J. A. Canales
State Bar No. 03737000
CANALES & SIMONSON, P.C.
2601 Morgan Avenue – P.O. Box 5624
Corpus Christi, Texas 78465-5624
Telephone: 361.883.0601
Telefax: 361.884.7023
Email: tonycanales@canalessimonson.com
Trial and Appellate Counsel
i
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellees agree that there is no need for oral argument
RECORD REFERENCES
Citations to the Clerk’s Record shall be referred to as “(C.R., page) and (Sup. C.R.,
page)”.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL……………………………………………………i
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT………………………………………….ii
RECORD REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………….iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………………………………………………….1
ISSUES PRESENTED:
The issue before the Court is whether the Appellant’s Petition to Intervene
survived the Plaintiff's motion to non-suit. Absent an order granting a Motion to
intervene, can the trial court in the granting of Plaintiff’s Non suit and dismissal
of the original suit include in the dismissal of the case the pending motion to
intervene? Or did the Trial Court err in dismissing the Appellant’s petition to
intervene when the appellant did not have an order granting the intervention. We
submit there is no error……………………………………………………………............2
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………2
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………...3
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………………..3
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………….4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………………………………………………………………5
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLAINCE…………………………………………………………. 6
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE
City of Port Arthur v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.,
13 S.W. 3d 841, 843 (Tex. App.- Austin 2000, no pet.)………………………..4
Guaranty Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshore Oper. Co.,
793 S.W.2d 652, 657…………………………………………………………….3
In re Union Carbid Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Tex. 2008)………………………….4
Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982)………………………………….4
Shadowbrook Apartments vs. Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 110, 211 (Tex. 1990)……….4
University of Texas v. Estate of Blackmon, 195 S.W.3d 98, 99 (Tex. 2006)………….4
iv
CAUSE NO. 13-15-00105-CV
IN THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI AND EDINBURG, TEXAS
CROX QUINTANILLA,
Appellant,
VS.
LAW OFFICE OF JERRY J. TREVINO, P.C. and JERRY J. TREVINO,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM
THE 347TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS,
CAUSE NO. 2013-DCV-2066-H
HONORALBE DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, PRESIDING BY ASSIGNMENT
APPELLEES’ BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE 13TH COURT OF APPPEALS:
COME NOW Appellees, Law Office of Jerry J. Trevino, P.C. and Jerry J. Trevino and
hereby submit their Brief.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the case: Appellee sued Randall Barrera, individually, Rene Rodriguez, individually
and Rene Rodriguez, trustee for various causes of action including breach of contract. (C.R. 5
Original Petition and Amended Petition C.R. 124). Appellee filed a motion to nonsuit all of the
parties (C.R. 191-192). None of the original trial defendants, Randall Barrera, Rene Rodriguez,
individually nor as Trustee have appealed and are not parties to this appellate proceeding.
1
Appellant filed a Petition to intervene. (C.R. pages 67 and 87). The Appellee challenged the
intervention and filed a Motion to Strike the Intervention. (Sup. C.R. page 4).
Course of Proceedings: Prior to the Appellee’s motion to nonsuit, Appellant filed a motion to
intervene (C. R. 67). Appellee in response to the proposed intervention challenged and objected
to the intervention and filed a Motion to Strike the Plea in Intervention on September 3, 2013
(Sup C.R. page 4). The Appellant did not obtain a ruling from the Court on the Appellant’s
Petition to Intervene. The trial court entered an order of dismissal of the non-suit of the
Appellee’s claims on September 24, 2014 (C.R. 191). On January 12, 2015, Appellee filed a
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike/Dismiss the Intervention (C.R. 196) and on January
22, 2015 the Court granted the Appellee motion and dismissed the proposed intervention (C.R.
pages 201 and 207). The Appellant appeals.
ISSUES PRESENTED
The issue before the Court is whether the Appellant’s Petition to Intervene survived the
Plaintiff's motion to non-suit. Absent an order granting a Motion to Intervene, can the
Trial Court in the granting of Plaintiff’s Non suit and dismissal of the original suit
include in the dismissal of the case the pending Motion to Intervene? Or did the Trial
Court err in dismissing the Appellant’s petition to intervene when the appellant did not
have an order granting the intervention. We submit there is no error.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In outline style the following are the undisputed facts:
1. The Appellee filed suit. (C.R. pages 5 & 124).
2. The Appellant filed a petition for intervention. (C.R. pages 67 & 87).
3. The Appellees filed Motions to Strike the Appellant Petition for Intervention.
(Sup. C. R. pages 4 and 55).
2
4. The Appellee filed a non-suit of his Petition. (C.R. page 192) and the Court
Granted the Motion of Nonsuit. (C. R. 191).
5. Subsequently, the Court signed an Order of Dismissal of the Intervention. (C.R.
pages 201 and 207).
The Appellate Record is clear and undisputed that there was a Motion to Strike the
Appellants Petition for intervention at the time of the nonsuit and the Appellant never obtained a
ruling from the Trial Court overruling the Appellees’ Motion to Strike and permitting the
Appellant’s intervention to intervene.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The issue before the Court is whether the Appellant’s Petition to Intervene survived the
Plaintiff's motion to non-suit. It is the contention of the appellee that once the Court received the
Motion to Non-Suit and an Order of Dismissal was entered, because the pending Petition to
Intervene was being challenged and had not been ruled on, and there was an absence of any
affirmative relief pending by any defendant, there is no pending suit remaining for Appellant to
intervene. The Court is now without jurisdiction, the Petition to intervene was no longer before
the court. The Trial Court did not err in dismissing the Appellant’s Plea In Intervention.
ARGUMENT
In Guaranty Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Oper. Co., 793 S.W. 2nd 652, 657 the court
stated:
“Without a motion to strike, the trial court abused its discretion in striking
Petrolife’s plea in Intervention.”
Thus making it clear that a Motion to Strike the intervention is a prerequisite in order to object to
the intervention. Pending the challenge to the intervention, by a motion to strike, the
intervention is not granted.
3
At Dorsaneo, Texas Litigation Guide at 5-82 Dorsaneo, Texas Litigation Guide § 82.10
explains it best by summarily stating:
‘Once the motion to strike is filed, the intervenor bears the burden to show a
justiciable interest, legal or equitable, in the lawsuit [Mendez v. Brewer, 626
S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982) ; City of Port Arthur v. Southwestern Bell
Telephone Co., 13 S.W.3d 841, 843 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, no pet.) (intervenor
did not meet burden of showing right to intervene)]. It is the justiciable interest
requirement that defines the category of nonparties who may interject their
interests into a pending suit [In re Union Carbide Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152, 155
(Tex. 2008)].
At the time of the Order granting the nonsuit the Appellant’s Petition to Intervene had not been
heard nor granted. Because the Appellant’s intervention was pending and had not been heard nor
granted the Dismissal of the case also dismissed the Motion to Intervene. See Tex. R. Civ. Proc.
Rule 60 and Rule 162. A voluntary dismissal or “nonsuit extinguishes a case from 'the moment
the motion is filed’ or an oral motion is made in open court: the only requirement is 'the mere
filing of the motion with the clerk of the Court.'" See: University of Texas v. Estate of
Blackmon, 195 S. W.3d 98, 99 (Tex. 2006) (quoting Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad,
783 S.W.2d:110,211 (Tex. 1990). The instant suit was "extinguished" before the Petition to
Intervene was ruled on, and the trial Court had no Jurisdiction to consider the
Intervention and was not before the court upon the non-suit taken effect.
PRAYER
For the reasons stated in this brief, Appellee asks the Court to overrule appellant’s issues
and to affirm the trial court judgment dismissing the Appellant Petition for Intervention.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ J. A. Canales
J. A. CANALES
State Bar No. 03737000
4
CANALES & SIMONSON, P.C.
2601 Morgan Ave.-P.O. Box 5624
Corpus Christi, Texas 78465-5624
Telephone: (361) 883-0601
Telefax: (361) 884-7023
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
LAW OFFICE OF JERRY J. TRVINO, P.C.
And JERRY J. TREVINO
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of APPELLEES’ BRIEF was served via
certified mail, return receipt requested on this 21st day of September, 2015 to the following:
Criag S. Smith
LAW PFFOCE PF CRAIG S. SMITH
14493 S.P.I.D., Suite A; P.M.B. 240
Corpus Christi, Texas 78418
Email: csslaw@stx.rr.com
Appellant Counsel
Rene Rodriguez
LAW OFFICES OF RENE RODRIGUEZ
433 South Tancahua
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Trial and Appellate Counsel
/s/ J. A. Canales
J. A. Canales
5
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedures, the undersigned counsel
certifies that this brief complies with the type-volume limitations and contains 969
words.
/s/ J. A. Canales
J. A. Canales
Attorney for Defendants-Appellees
Law Office of Jerry J. Trevino, P.C.
and Jerry J. Trevino
6
Crox Quintanilla v. Law Office of Jerry J. Trevino, P.C.
Combined Opinion