Court Opinion

ID: 3124839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 15:00:04.826365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:50.196242
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-10-00075-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

THOMAS MOLONEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND
NUECES OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE CLINIC,                                     Appellants,

                                          v.

JESUS RODRIGUEZ,                                    Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      The parties to this appeal have filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice. By

their motion, the parties ask the Court to render judgment effectuating the parties’

agreement including: (1) vacating the trial court’s February 2, 2010 Order denying and

overruling Defendants Thomas Moloney, Individually, and Nueces Occupational
Medicine Clinic’s Motion to Dismiss; (2) dismissing all claims against Thomas Moloney,

Individually, and Nueces Occupational Medicine Clinic, with prejudice; (3) denying

appellants’ request for attorney’s fees; and (4) ordering that each party shall bear the

costs they have incurred.

       The Court has considered the motion and it is the Court=s opinion that the motion

should be granted in part and denied in part.1 Accordingly, without regard to the merits,

we vacate the trial court=s Order entered February 2, 2010, and remand the case to the

trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties= settlement agreement.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B); 43.2(d). In accordance with the agreement of the

parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

                                                       PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
13th day of May, 2010.

       1
         Rule 42.1(a)(2) permits the Court to render judgment effectuating the parties= agreements or to
vacate the trial court=s judgment and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in
accordance with the agreement; we cannot do both. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A),(B). The parties
have asked us to dismiss the appeal. We cannot both vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B); 43.2(d), (f).

                                                   2