Letha Pillai v. Jesus Vega and Dalia Vega ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                  COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
    FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
    ORDER AND
    NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS
    Appellate case name:      Letha Pillai v. Jesus Vega and Dalia Vega
    Appellate case number:    01-14-00215-CV
    Trial court case number: 2011-68692
    Trial court:              234th District Court of Harris County
    On June 5, 2014, the Court referred this case to mediation as requested by the agreed
    motion of appellant, Letha Pillai, and appellees, Jesus Vega and Dalia Vega. Soon thereafter, the
    mediator and appellees notified the Court that the parties had settled the matter and entered into a
    mediated settlement agreement. On July 17, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified the parties that
    the appeal might be dismissed unless the parties demonstrated, no later than August 31, 2014,
    that there was a live controversy as to the merits of the appeal between them. See Valley Baptist
    Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 
    33 S.W.3d 821
    , 822 (Tex. 2000). Appellant responded, requesting that the
    appeal remain on the Court’s active docket “until notice is given that the settlement agreement
    has been carried out and completed[.]”
    On August 25, 2014, appellant, representing that appellees had not executed all
    documents necessary to effectuate the settlement, filed a “Motion to Enforce Mediation
    Settlement Agreement upon Appellees.” Appellant next filed a “Supplement to Motion to
    Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees and for Sanctions” and a “Request for
    Emergency Hearing on Appellant’s Motion and Supplement to Motion to Enforce Mediation
    Settlement Agreement upon Appellees and for Sanctions.” Appellant continues to represent that
    appellees have failed “to execute and return the agreed documents to conclude this matter” and
    have not “fulfilled their Agreement at Mediation . . . .” Appellant requests that we order
    appellees to execute the settlement documents and seeks sanctions against appellees. We deny
    appellant’s (1) Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees, (2)
    Supplement to Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees and for
    Sanctions, and (3) Request for Emergency Hearing on Appellant’s Motion and Supplement to
    Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees. See generally Mantas v.
    Fifth Court of Appeals, 
    925 S.W.2d 656
    , 658–59 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (stating that,
    when dispute regarding settlement agreement arises while underlying action is on appeal, party
    seeking enforcement must file separate breach of contract action).
    In the “Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees,” appellant
    states that the case “was settled at mediation on June 11, 2014.” Further, the mediator and
    appellees’ counsel have notified this Court that settlement was reached and the parties entered
    into a mediated settlement agreement. Accordingly, unless the parties to this appeal demonstrate,
    within 14 days of the date of this notice, that there is a live controversy between them as to the
    merits of this appeal, the appeal may be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Valley Baptist
    Med. 
    Ctr., 33 S.W.3d at 822
    .
    It is so ORDERED.
    Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd
     Acting individually      Acting for the Court
    Date: January 15, 2015
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-14-00215-CV

Filed Date: 1/16/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/17/2015