Court Opinion

ID: 9745700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 10:13:47.939672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:40.988128
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Majority and Concurring Opinions filed August
22, 2023.

                                      In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                              NO. 14-22-00306-CV

 VIJAYRAMA POREDDY, M.D. AND AUSTIN GASTROENTEROLOGY,
                     P.A., Appellants
                                        V.

  MA ANGELICA HERNANDEZ DE SOLIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
   NEXT FRIEND OF SERAFIN SOLIS RICO, AN INCAPACITATED
PERSON, AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR MARCO SOLIS HERNANDEZ, A
  MINOR; MOISES SOLIS HERNANDEZ; AND ALEJANDRA SOLIS
                   HERNANDEZ, Appellees

                    On Appeal from the 53rd District Court
                            Travis County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-20-001914

                 MEMORANDUM CONCURRING OPINION

      With the understanding that appellants have not brought the question before
this courts regarding the application of Lidji when a plaintiff does not dismiss the
entire case, I join both this court’s opinion and judgment. CHCA Woman’s Hosp.,
L.P. v. Lidji, 403 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. 2013).

       Both appellants and appellees treat plaintiffs’ August 18, 2020 dismissal of
their claims against some—but not all—plaintiffs named in their original petition
as a Rule 162 “non-suit.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 162 (providing in part, “At any time
before the plaintiff has introduced all of his evidence other than rebuttal evidence,
the plaintiff may dismiss a case, or take a non-suit, which shall be entered in the
minutes.”). 1 While the absolute right to a non-suit under Rule 162 does not extend
to a dismissal of some but not all claims, appellants neither preserve such a
complaint for appellate review nor argue it on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)
(preservation), 38.2(a)(1) (appellee’s brief must conform to Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 38.1(i) (brief must contain clear and concise argument for
contentions made)); see also Brown v. Robinson, No. 14-17-00754-CV, 2019 WL
1339651, at *3, n.4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 26, 2019, no pet.)
(mem. op.) (“A true nonsuit under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 162 voluntarily
dismisses the entire case.”) (citing C/S Sols, Inc. v. Energy Maint. Servs. Co., 274
S.W.3d 299, 305–07 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (holding
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 163—not Rule 162 (non-suits)—applies to a
dismissal of less than all defendants)).2

       1
           The rule uses the terms “dismissal” and “non-suit” interchangeably. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
162.
       2
          The appellate record suggests that at the time of the non-suit, appellants were the only
defendants that had been served and answered. I am not suggesting that appellants have waived
error in the trial court or did not make a viable argument on appeal.

                                                 2
      I respectfully concur.

                                      /s/       Charles A. Spain
                                                Justice

Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan (Hassan, J., majority).

                                            3