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

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