Court Opinion

ID: 3181412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-01 13:29:31.710884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:25.835871
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                           SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                FORT WORTH

                                   NO. 02-16-00001-CV

BRAUMS, INC.                                                       APPELLANT

                                           V.

ANGELITA SIFUENTES                                                   APPELLEE

                                        ----------

            FROM THE 17TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
                      TRIAL COURT NO. 017-270194-14

                                        ----------

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION1

                                        ----------

      We have considered the parties’ “Joint Motion to Vacate and Render

Judgment Pursuant to Settlement,” which requests that we vacate the trial court’s

judgment and render judgment dismissing the cause, not the appeal, with

      1
          See Tex. R. App. 47.4.
prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.2 While we cannot both vacate

the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal,3 the appellate rules allow us to

render judgment vacating the trial court’s judgment and dismissing the case,

whether that rendition occurs after we consider the merits of the appeal4 or in

effectuating the parties’ settlement agreement.5

      We note that a prior memorandum opinion of this court appearing to hold

to the contrary disposed of a motion requesting relief beyond merely vacating the

      2
          See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A).
      3
       Metro Games, Inc. v. Boomerjack Ventures, LLC, No. 02-13-00407-CV,
2013 WL 6871921, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 27, 2013, no pet.) (mem.
op.); Cunningham v. Cunningham, No. 02-08-00362-CV, 2008 WL 5479677, at
*1 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 30, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.); Singh v.
Hansen, No. 08-06-00188-CV, 2007 WL 274208, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb.
1, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), (B), 43.2(e), (f).
      4
      Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(e); see, e.g., Dallas Cty. v. Posey, 290 S.W.3d 869,
872 (Tex. 2009); Arlington ISD v. Kellam, No. 02-05-00322-CV, 2006 WL
240276, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 2, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.).
      5
        Tex. R. App. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(e); see, e.g., The Hous. Auth. of the City
of El Paso v. Alvarado, No. 08-03-00113-CV, 2004 WL 1218741, at *1 (Tex.
App.—El Paso June 3, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.); Caballero v. Heart of Tex.
Pizza, L.L.C., 70 S.W.3d 180, 181 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.); see
also Denar, LLC v. Denny’s, Inc., No. 02-06-00084-CV, 2006 WL 2382887, at *1
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 17, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.); Shoemake v.
Watson, 181 S.W.3d 870, 870 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Penn Treaty
Network Amer. Ins. Co. v. Money Servs., Inc., No. 02-03-00050-CV, 2003 WL
2006830, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.); Minns
v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 252 S.W.3d 421, 421 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

                                          2
trial court’s judgment and dismissing the case.6 Specifically, in Bonney v. Scott,

the parties sought dismissal of the case and the vacatur of both the trial court’s

judgment and this court’s prior judgment without withdrawal of the corresponding

memorandum opinion on the merits.7          We do not have such additional

complications here.

      Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion is granted. Without regard to the

merits and effectuating the parties’ settlement agreement, we vacate the trial

court’s judgment and dismiss the cause with prejudice.8

      6
     See Bonney v. Scott, No. 02-08-00124-CV, 2009 WL 1905137, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth July 2, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.).
      7
          See id.
      8
         See Tex. R. App. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(e); see, e.g., Patterson v. Tolbert,
No. 05-15-01372-CV, 2015 WL 8013659, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 7, 2015,
no pet.) (mem. op.); Metro. Park Mgmt., LLC v. Hyman, No. 09-15-00033-CV,
2015 WL 5604447, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Sept. 24, 2015, no pet.) (mem.
op.); Felder v. Woodlen Glen Apartments, No. 01-15-00079-CV, 2015 WL
2437881, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 21, 2015, no pet.) (mem.
op.); Hewitt v. Austin Hi-Tech Restoration, Inc., No. 03-13-00856-CV, 2014 WL
1018161, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 11, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); TX Med.
Office, LP v. Tenet Health Sys. Hosps., Inc., No. 08-12-00263-CV, 2013 WL
4506409, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 21, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); Sheerin
v. N. Nat. Gas Co., No. 04-12-00333-CV, 2013 WL 164522, at *1 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio Jan. 16, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); Trading Fair IV, Inc. v. FH
Partners, LLC, No. 10-12-00184-CV, 2012 WL 4243717, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco
Sept. 20, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); Sulzer Orthopedics Inc. v. Rupp, No. 13-01-
00844-CV, 2009 WL 1238506, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 7, 2009, no
pet.) (mem. op.); Plescia v. Seelye, No. 14-07-00758-CV, 2008 WL 1838649, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 24, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.); Smith
Int’l, Inc. v. Bustamante, No. 07-08-00059-CV, 2008 WL 1721550, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo Apr. 14, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.); Sloan v. Palacious, No. 12-

                                        3
      Also relying on the settlement agreement, we order that each party shall

bear its own costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.9

                                                      /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot
                                                      LEE ANN DAUPHINOT
                                                      JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 25, 2016

01-00003-CV, 2001 WL 1429424, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Nov. 14, 2001, no pet.)
(not designated for publication).
      9
          See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), (d), 43.4.

                                           4