Court Opinion

ID: 9406654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-02 14:07:38.672531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:32.309685
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Texas
                             ══════════
                              No. 21-0157
                             ══════════

   IMT Pavilion III LP and Investors Management Trust Real
          Estate Group, Inc. d/b/a IMT Residential,
                               Petitioners,

                                     v.

  Victor Mendez, for Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
                               Respondent

   ═══════════════════════════════════════
              On Petition for Review from the
       Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
   ═══════════════════════════════════════

                              PER CURIAM

       Justice Huddle and Justice Young did not participate in the
decision.

      Landlord IMT Pavilion 1 challenges through interlocutory appeal
the certification of two classes of its current and former tenants to
pursue claims against IMT Pavilion under Section 13.505 of the Texas
Water Code. Several months after IMT Pavilion filed its petition for

      1 We refer to the petitioners, IMT Pavilion III LP and Investors
Management Trust Real Estate Group, Inc. d/b/a IMT Residential, collectively,
as IMT Pavilion.
review in this Court, we addressed the requirements of Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure 42 in a trio of decisions. Although the court of appeals
affirmed the trial court’s order certifying the two classes, the court did
not have the benefit of our recent opinions in American Campus
Communities, Inc. v. Berry, 677 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. 2023), Mosaic
Baybrook One, L.P. v. Simien, __ S.W.3d __, 2023 WL 3027992 (Tex. Apr.
21, 2023), and Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P. v. Cessor, __ S.W.3d __, 2023
WL 3027939 (Tex. Apr. 21, 2023). Accordingly, without hearing oral
argument, we grant the petition for review without reference to the
merits, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand this case to
that court to reconsider the parties’ arguments in light of those
decisions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, 60.2.

OPINION DELIVERED: June 30, 2023

                                    2