Court Opinion

ID: 9388927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-22 18:09:02.580849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:24.068765
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00600-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

THRIVE MORTGAGE, LLC,                                                       Appellant,

                                               v.

RICHARD VALDEZ AND KRYSTINA VALDEZ,                                         Appellees.

                    On appeal from the 430th District Court
                          of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
          Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

      Appellees Richard Valdez and Krystina Valdez filed a petition seeking injunctive

relief “to stop a foreclosure.” The trial court signed an order granting a temporary

injunction in favor of appellees, and appellant Thrive Mortgage, LLC filed an interlocutory

appeal challenging the trial court’s order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§ 51.014(a)(4); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(a).
        Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss its appeal, stating it no longer wishes to

pursue its appeal. The Court, having considered appellant’s motion, is of the opinion that

the motion should be granted. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, appellant’s

motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs will be taxed

against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the court

will tax costs against the appellant.”). Because the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s

request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained.

                                                                          DORI CONTRERAS
                                                                          Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the
20th day of April, 2023.

        1 On January 11, 2023, appellees filed a motion which we construed as a motion to dismiss
appellant’s appeal. On February 10, 2023, the Clerk of this Court informed the parties that the motion would
be carried with the case. We now deny appellees’ motion to dismiss as moot.
                                                     2