### NUM BER13-09- 0020 8-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ GRE GORY A . B EA

VER S, ETA L., A pp ellan ts,

v . BP A M OCO C ORP ORA TION , ETA L., A pp ellees
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On ap pe al from th e 3 47t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ______ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam W e w ithdra w

the m em oran dum opinio n an d judgme nt issued on Ap ril 23, 200 9, in
caus e number

13- 09- 00208- CVand subs ti tute the fol low ing memorandum opi nio n. Appel lan ts, Greg or

y A. Beavers , et al. , per

fected an appeal from a jud g ment ent ered by the 347th Di str ict C o u rto f N uecesC ounty , Texas, i n tr ial co urt c ause number 0 4
- 3 8 1 9
- H

. S e v e ra l a p p e l l e e s h a v e fi l e d m o t i o n s w i t h t h i s C o u rtt o d i s mi s s t h i s appeal (app ellate cause num ber 13 -08-00 214 -CV). App ellees BP Amo co Corpora tion a nd BP Amo co Chem ical Comp any (“A m oco”) hav e fil ed an unoppos ed m o ti o n to dis mis s t he appe al as to A moco o n g ro unds that2

app ell an tsn on s ui te d or o th er w i s e ha d al l c l ai msd i s mi s s ed a g ai ns t Am oc o. Amoco requests tha t this Court dism iss th e app eal as to it b ecau se it is nota p rope r pa rty t o this app eal. Appell e e Val ero Energ y C or porati on ( “V ale ro ”)hasfil ed an unoppos ed moti on to dis mis s t he appe al as to Val ero on g ro unds that appel lan ts ag re ed to nonsu it the a ppeal
as to V ale ro
. Val ero al so se e ks to cl ar ify thatVal ero R efini ng -Texas, LP isnot a proper par ty to thi s a ppeal

. Appel lan ts do notoppos e s uch cl ar ific ati on. App ellees Be azer East, Inc. (“ Bea z er East”) and Corpus Christi Gasket & Fast ene r, Ltd . (“C CG&F”) hav e f iled a mo tion to dismiss the app eal, a sserting that a ppe llants Ge rald Sheetsand Nabb ie Ro ber ts had all of

their clai ms aga ins t Be az er Eas t and C CG &F nonsui ted o r other

w is e di smi ss ed. The Co urt, hav ing co nsi dered th e doc umentson f ile, isof the o pin ion thatthe moti ons shoul d be g ra nted. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42 .3. Ap pellee s’ motio ns to dism iss are g ra nted, and the a ppeal i s he re b y DISMI SSED F ORW AN T OF JU RI SD IC TION asto a p p e lle e s B P Am o co C o rp o ra ti o n a n d B P A m o co Ch e m ica l Co m p a n y, an d Va le ro En e rgy Corporat ion. Ad dition ally , the app eal brou ght byapp ellant s Gerald Sh eet s and Nabbie Rob e rt s a gai n stBeaz er Eas t, Inc . and C or pus Chr is ti Gas ket& F ast ener , Lt d. i s h ereby DISMISSE D FOR W A NT OF JUR ISDICT ION. Th e Court also instructs the Clerk of this Cou rt to update thi s Cou rt ’s re cords to reflectthatVal ero R efini ng -Texas, LP isnot a par ty to th is appe al.

P E RC U R I A M Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s t he 22nd day

of June, 2009.