Court Opinion

ID: 6327179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-28 07:15:38.967128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:14.702419
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00023-CV

                   COURT OF APPEALS

             THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

              CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
GENE MARSHALL BETTS REVOCABLE
TRUST; WILD BASIN INVESTMENTS LLC;
TIMMINS LIVING TRUST; KEN SHIFRIN;
EDWARD W. CHARRIER; LANCE ADAMS;
MATULA FAMILY, LP – CLASS 1;
STAR VISTA CAPITAL, LLC; GEORGE
SCHAEFER; PAUL MICHAEL BEDELL;
JOHN WAGES, PROSPECT HILL
CAPITAL, LLC; WOODGEN, LLC; AND
CRAIG DUBOIS,                                     Appellants,
                                   v.
PHUNWARE, INC. F/K/A STELLAR
ACQUISITION III, INC.; PHUNWARE
OPCO, INC. F/K/A PHUNWARE, INC.;
ALAN KNITOWSKI; LUAN DANG;
RANDALL CROWDER; MATT AUNE;
PROKOPIOS AKIS TSIRIGAKIS;
GEORGE SYLLANTAVOS; LORI
TAUBER MARCUS; KATHY TAN
MAYOR; KEITH COWAN; WINSTON
DAMARILLO; CHASE FRASER;
JOHN KAHAN; AND ERIC MANLUNAS,                     Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
             On appeal from the 126th District Court
                    of Travis County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
 Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina
            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

       This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant

to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN. § 73.001. In their unopposed motion to dismiss appeal, appellants now request

dismissal based on a forum selection clause, as plaintiffs have filed suit in the Court of

Chancery of the State of Delaware. The suit filed in the State of Delaware asserts the

claims and causes of action also asserted in this matter; therefore, the appeal is no longer

necessary.

       The Court, having considered the motion, is of the opinion that the motion should

be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1),(2). Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted,

and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs will be taxed against the appellants. 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 appellants’ request, no motion for

rehearing will be entertained.

                                                               GINA M. BENAVIDES
                                                               Justice

Delivered and filed on the
24th day of March, 2022.

                                             2