Christus Spohn Health System Corporation, D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi - Shoreline v. Anita H. Sosa, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Shawna Lee Sosa

Summarize Case

Related Cases

NUMBER 13-16-00578-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION D/B/A CHRISTUS SPOHN HOSPITAL CORPUS CHRISTI - SHORELINE, Appellant, v. ANITA H. SOSA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF SHAWNA LEE SOSA, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Appellant, Christus Spohn Health System Corporation d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi – Shoreline, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas in cause number 2014-DCV-0727-C. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction taken pursuant to section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). On January 20, 2017, this appeal was abated to allow the parties an opportunity to effectuate a settlement agreement. Appellant has now filed an unopposed motion requesting that we reinstate this appeal, and then dismiss the appeal based on the parties’ agreement. Appellant states that it will be responsible for its costs of appeal. The Court, having examined and fully considered the unopposed motion to reinstate and dismiss this appeal, is of the opinion that it should be granted. Accordingly, we reinstate this cause and dismiss the appeal based on the parties’ agreement. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.”). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice Delivered and filed the 2nd day of March, 2017. 2