ACCEPTED

03-14-00612-CV

4109871

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

2/11/2015 2:01:00 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK 

## NO. 03-14-00612-CV

IN THE

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

OF TEXAS

M&M ORTHODONTICS, P.A.



## v.

THESTATEOFTEXAS Appellant,

Appellees.



## On appeal from the 53rd District Court, Travis County, Texas

Cause No. NO. D-1-GN-14-000321

APPELLANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE AND DISMISS

APPEAL WITH PREJUDICE

Appellant asks the court to vacate and dismiss this appeal with prejudice.

A. INTRODUCTION

1. 

## Appellant is M&M Orthodontics; appellee is the State of Texas.

2. Appellant perfected the appeal on September 23, 2014, when it filed a

notice of appeal.

B. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

3. The court has the authority under Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure

42.1(a) to grant this motion to dismiss.

4. Since the filing of the appeal by M&M Orthodontics (hereinafter "M&M"),

M&M Orthodontics' Unopposed Motion to Dismiss



### Page 1 of4

### the State of Texas brought separate claims against several dentists including

M&M; that new case is styled State v. Nazari, et al., 

### Cause No. D-1-GN-14-

005380 (hereinafter "5380").

5. Subsequently, the State of Texas and M&M have entered into an agreement

to dismiss this appeal. (See Attached Exhibit A -February 9, 2015 Rule 11

Agreement). The parties have agreed that the issues in this appeal will likely be

duplicative of the issues to be considered in 5380, so this appeal can be vacated.

6. Appellant asks the Court to vacate this appeal and dismiss it with prejudice.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER



### 7. For these reasons, the Appellant respectfully requests that court vacate and

dismiss this appeal with prejudice.

Respectfully Submitted,

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

M&M Orthodontics' Unopposed Motion to Dismiss



### Page 2 of4

### CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE



### I communicated by e-mail on February 9, 2015 with opposing counsel,

Raymond Winter (for the State of Texas) and the attached Rule 11 agreement with

the State indicates that the State does not oppose this motion.

M&M Orthodontics' Unopposed Motion to Dismiss



### Page 3 of4

## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was

served by eservice on February 10, 2015 to the following:



## Counsel (or State o(Texas:

Raymond Winter

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 12458

Austin, TX 78711-2548

raymond. winter@texasattomeygeneral.gov



## Counsel (or ACS State Healthcare,LLC:

Eric J.R. Nichols

Christopher R. Cowan

Beck Redden, LLP

515 Congress A venue, Suite 1 7 50

Austin, Texas, 78701

enicho1s@beckredden.com

ccowan@beckredden.com

M&M Orthodontics' Unopposed Motion to Dismiss



### Page 4 of4

## EXHIBIT A

February 9, 2015 Rule 112/9/2015 2:50:01 PMVelva L. PriceDistrict ClerkTravis CountyD-1-GN-14-000319JenniferS.RiggsRlGGS&RAYFranklinHopkins('ertifiedinAdmini.•lralivel.awTexa•Boardrif/.ega/Specialrzarwnjriggst4lr-alaw.comAPROFESSIONALCORPORATIONATTORNEYSANDCOUNSELORSCert{fiedInAdmilli.flrati••cl.awTe.ta.•Boardrif!.ega/Specia/i::nlimrfbopkins!ii)r-alaw.comJasonRayCertifiedmAdministrativel.awTexa.•Boardof/.ega/Specializationjray@r-alaw.comRaymondWinterChief,CivilMedicaidFraudDivisionAssistantAttorneyGeneralOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralP.O.Box12548Austin,Texas78711-2548700LAVACA,SUITE910AUSTIN,TEXAS78701511457-9806TELEPHONE511457-9066FACSIMILEFebruary9,2015viae-mailto:raymond.winter(w.texasattornevgeneral.govRe:CauseNo.D-1-GN-000319;HarlingenFamilyDentistry,P.C.andDr.JuanVillarreal,D.D.S.v.ACSStateHealthcare,LLC,inthe53rdJudicialDistrict,TravisCounty,TexasandCauseNo.D-1-GN-000321;M&MOrthodontics,PA,Dr.ScottMalone,DDSandDr.DianaMalone,DDS,vACSStateHealthcare,LLC,inthe1261hJudicialDistrict,TravisCounty,Texas.DearRay:TheHarlingenFamilyDentistryplaintiffsbroughtclaimsagainsttheStateofTexasinCauseNo.D-1-GN-14-000319(hereinafter"319").TheM&MOrthodonticsplaintiffsbroughtclaimsagainsttheStateofTexasinCauseNo.D-1-GN-14-000321(hereinafter"321").TheDistrictCourtsignedanordergrantingtheState'sPleatotheJurisdictionin319and321onSeptember18,2014.Theplaintiffsin319and321appealedtheOrderGrantingtheState'sPleatotheJurisdictionandthatappealispending.TheStatesubsequentlybroughtseparateclaimsagainstseveraldentistsand,interalia,theplaintiffsin319and321;thatnewcaseisstyledStatev.Nazari,etal.,CauseNo.D-1-GN-14-005380(hereinafter"5380").Bythisagreement,theplaintiffsin319and321agreetodismisswithprejudicetheappealoftheOrderGrantingtheState'sPleatotheJurisdiction.ThepartiesagreethattheplaintiffsarenotrequiredtodismissanyclaimsagainstXeroxin319and321.Inexchange,theStateagreesandstipulatesthattheplaintiffsin319and321donotwaiveandbytheirdismissaloftheappealoftheOrderGrantingtheState'sPleatotheJurisdictiondonotsettle,anycausesofactiontheplaintiffsin319and321mayhaveagainstthirdparties,includingXerox.TheStateagreesthatthedismissaloftheappealoftheOrderGrantingtheState'sPleatotheJurisdictionin319and321willnotacttopreventtheassertionorappealofanyclaimsordefensesthatmayberaisedin5380.Raymond Winter

February 9, 2015

Page 2 of2

If the State agrees, please sign this and return it to me

. I will consider it a Rule 11 agreement

, and

each side can proceed with our respective arguments in the 5380 case, which should make for a

smaller, cleaner appellate record.

Sincerely,



# ..

Ray nd Winter

on behalf of the State of Texas

in Cause Nos. D-1-GN-14-000319,

D-1-GN-14-000321, and D-1-GN-14-005380