1 **NO. 04 -**  **13 -** **00888 -** **CV IN THE COURT OF APPE** **ALS FOR THE FOURTH JUDIC** **IAL DISTRICT OF TEXA S** 

**AT SAN ANTONIO** SPECIALTY SELECT CARE CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO, LLC D/B/A CASA RIO HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION,

Appellant, v. JOSE FLORES, AS NEXT FRIEND OF JULIE FLORES,

Appellee. On Appeal from the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Cause No. 2013
-CI-04577 **APPELLANT’S MOTION T O LIFT**  **ABATEMENT AND REINST ATE APPEAL** 

Breck Harrison

– 24007325 bharrison@jw.com Jorge A. Padilla

– 24054512 jpadilla@jw.com JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100 Austin, Texas 78701 512-236-2000 512-236-2002 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT SPECIALTY SELECT CARE CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO LLC D/B/A CASA RIO HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION June 11, 2015 ACCEPTED 04-13-00888-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/11/2015 4:06:55 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK2

**TO THE HONORABLE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS:** Appellant Specialty Select Care Center of San Antonio LLC d/b/a Casa Rio Healthcare and Rehabilitation (“Appellant”) files this Motion to Lift Abatement and Reinstate Appeal and respectfully shows the following: **FACTS AND ARGUMENT** This is an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. See TEX . CIV . PRAC . & REM . C ODE §51.016 (authorizing an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to com pel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act). Appellant filed its Appellant’s Brief on January 30, 2014. Appellee filed his Appellee’s Brief on February 18, 2014. On March 10, 2014, Appellant filed its Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief. On March 19, 2014, this Court entered an order that abated this case pending the Texas Supreme Court’s resolution of three cases previously decided by this Court: Williamsburg Care Co. L.P. v. Acosta , 406 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App.

—San Antonio 2013, pet. filed); Fredericksburg Care Co. L.P. v. Lira , 407 S.W.3d 810 (Tex. App.

—San Antonio 2013, pet. filed); and Fredericksburg Care Co. L.P. v. Perez, 406 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. App.

—San Antonio 2013, pet. filed) (collectively these three cases are referred to as “ Acosta , Lira and Perez”). See March 19, 2014 Order, attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” In granting Appellant’s Motion to Abate,3

this Court ordered that this case would “be treated as a closed case, unless and until appellant files a motion requesting its reinstatement following the Texas Supreme Court’s resolution of the issue.” Id. The Court’s March 19, 2014 order also denied Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief as moot. Id
. The Texas Supreme Court decided Acosta , Lira and Perez on March 6, 2015. In those opinions, the Texas Supreme Court resolved the central issue in this
case: whether Section 74.451 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code invalidated the parties’ arbitration agreement. Now that the Texas Supreme Court has resolved this issue, Appellant seeks to have this Court lift the abatement and reinstate the appeal. Furthermore, Appellant seeks for the Court to reconsider its Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief and set a deadline for Appellant to file its Reply to Appellee’s Brief. **PRAYER** Accordingly, Appellant Specialty Select Care Center of San Antonio LLC d/b/a Casa Rio Healthcare and Rehabilitation requests that this Court grant the Motion to Lift Abatement and Reinstate Appeal, to reconsider its Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief, and to set a deadline for Appellant to file its Reply to Appellee’s Brief.4 Respectfully submitted, JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. By: /s/ Jorge A. Padilla Breck Harrison State Bar No. 24007325 bharrison@jw.com Jorge A. Padilla State Bar No. 24054512 jpadilla@jw.com 100 Congress, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 236
-2000 (512) 236
-2002

– Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT SPECIALTY SELECT CARE CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO LLC D/B/A CASA RIO HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION5 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I certify that I have conferred with Andrew J. Skem p by email and I have attem pted in good faith to reach an agreement regarding the motion. Mr. Skemp has not responded to an email to determine whether he is opposed to this Motion to Lift Abatement and Reinstate Appeal. However, Mr. Skemp has previously requested the undersigned to file a motion to reinstate the appeal. /s/ Jorge A. Padilla Jorge A. Padilla

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on the 11th day of June 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on all counsel of record listed below in accordance with Rule 9.5(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure via e-mail and certified mail, return receipt requested: Beth S. Janicek Andrew J. Skemp Janicek Law Firm, PC 1100 NE Loop 410, Suite 550 San Antonio, Texas 78209 andrew@janiceklaw.com beth@janiceklaw.com /s/ Jorge A. Padilla Jorge A. Padilla

13572383v.1

# EXHIBIT **“ A** **”**

## §ourtb QCourt of**~ppeal% ~an**  

### %lntonio, W:exas March 19,2014 No. 04-13-00888-CV SPECIALTY SELECT CARE CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO LLC d/b/a Casa Rio Healthcare and Rehabilitation, Appellant
v. Jose FLORES, as next friend ofJulie Flores, Appellee From the l3lst Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Comt No. 2013-CI-04577 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Sandee Btyan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice ORDER FILE COPY

Appellant has filed a motion to abate this appeal because one of the issues presented in the appeal is the same issue pending in petitions for review filed in Williamsburg Care Co. L.P. v. Acosta, 406 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2013, pet. filed), Fredericksburg Care Co. L.P. v. Lira, 407 S.W.3d 810 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2013, pet. filed), and Fredericksburg Care Co. L.P. v. Perez, 406 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2013, pet. filed). This comt has considered the motion, the appellee's response, and the appellant's reply to the appellee's response. In light of the pending higher court review of the precedent previously established by this court, the comt has determined that abating this appeal pending the Texas Supreme Comt's resolution of the issue will likely achieve the greatest judicial efficiency. Accordingly, appellant's motion to abate is GRANTED. For administrative purposes, this appeal will be treated as a closed case, unless and until appellant files a motion requesting its reinstatement following the Texas Supreme Comi's resolution ofthe issue. Appellant's motion for extension oftime to file reply brief is DENIED AS MOOT. It is so ORDERED on March 19,2014.

ATIRSTRDTO

# ~ 

# qJw

Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court