Gloria Felder v. Woodlen Glen Apartments ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                 COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
    FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
    ORDER AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS
    Appellate case name:      Gloria Felder v. Woodlen Glen Apartments
    Appellate case number:    01-15-00079-CV
    Trial court case number: 1056604
    Trial court:              County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County, Texas
    Appellee, Woodlen Glen Apartments has filed a “Motion to Dismiss,” requesting this
    Court to dismiss “the lawsuit” and vacate the trial court judgment. By the motion, appellee
    represents that the parties have reached a mutual settlement agreement and appellee agrees to
    dismiss all claims in the cause of action with prejudice. However, the motion is not signed by
    appellant, Gloria Felder, does not include a certificate of conference, or otherwise reflect that
    appellant agrees to the requested relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(1)(5). Accordingly, we deny
    the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(1) (providing appellate court may render judgment
    effectuating settlement agreement “[i]n accordance with an agreement signed by their parties or
    their attorneys and filed with the clerk); cf. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, No. 13-14-00112-CV, 
    2014 WL 3731578
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 24, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op) (granting
    appellee’s motion, setting aside trial court judgment, and remanding case when appellee included
    signed settlement agreement with motion).
    Nevertheless, the existence of an actual controversy is essential to the exercise of
    appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 
    33 S.W.3d 821
    , 822 (Tex.
    2000). Based on the representation in appellee’s motion to dismiss, it appears that the parties
    have resolved their dispute on the merits and we may no longer have jurisdiction over this
    appeal. Unless the parties to the appeal demonstrate, within 14 days of the date of this order,
    that there is a live controversy between them as to the merits of the appeal, the appeal may be
    dismissed.
    It is so ORDERED.
    Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings
     Acting individually      Acting for the Court
    Date: March 3, 2015
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-15-00079-CV

Filed Date: 3/3/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015