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 347 TH 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 ACCEPTED

13-15-00105-CV

THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

9/21/2015 11:58:54 AM

Dorian E. Ramirez

CLERKi 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 Co unsel

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 Counselii 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)”.iii 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 PRESEN TED :

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

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 6iv 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) .............41 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 347 TH 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 13 TH 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 breac h 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 appea led and are not parties to this appellate proceeding.2

Appellant filed a Petition to intervene. (C.R. pages 67 and 87)

. The A ppellee challenged the

intervention and filed a M otion to S trike 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 M otion to S trike the Plea in I ntervention on Septembe r 3, 2013

(Sup C.R. page 4 )

. The A ppellant did not obtain a ruling from the Court on the Appellant’s

P etition to I ntervene. 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 M otion to S trike/ D ismiss the I ntervention (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 I ntervene, can the

T rial C ourt in the granting of Plaintiff’s Non suit and dismissal of the original suit

include in the dismissal of the case the pending M otion to I ntervene ? 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 sty le 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 A ppellee s filed Motions to S trike the Appellant Petition for Intervention.

(Sup . C. R. page s 4 and 55)

.3

4. The Appellee filed a non

- suit of his Petition. (C.R. page 192) and t he Court

Granted the Motion of N onsuit. (C. R. 191).

5. Subsequently, t he Court signed an Order of D ismissal of the Intervention . (C.R.

page s 201 and 207 )

.

The Appellate R ecord is clear and undisputed that there was a Motion to S trike the

Appellants Petition for intervention at the time of the nonsuit and the Appellant ne ver obtained a

ruling from the Trial C ourt overruling the Appellees’ Motion to S trike 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

I ntervene 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 jurisdi ction, the Petition to intervene was no longer before

the court

. The Trial C ourt did not err in dismissing the Appellant’s Plea In I ntervention.

ARGUMENT

In Guaranty Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Oper. Co ., 793 S.W. 2 nd 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 challe nge to the intervention, by a motion to strike, the

intervention is not granted.4

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 interv enor 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. So uthwestern 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 I ntervene had not been

heard nor granted. Because the Appellant’s intervention was pending and had not been heard nor

granted the Dismissal of the cas e also dismissed the Motion to I ntervene. 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 req uirement is 'the mere

filing of the motion with the clerk of the C ourt.'" 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. C ANALES

State Bar No. 037370005 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 21 st 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. Canales6 

### 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