in Re Love Enterprises, L.L.C., Love Partnership Interests, L.P., and Kenneth A. Love ( 2015 )

NUMBER 13-15-00557-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE LOVE ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., LOVE PARTNERSHIP INTERESTS, L.P., AND KENNETH A. LOVE On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 1 Relators, Love Enterprises, L.L.C., Love Partnership Interests, L.P., and Kenneth A. Love, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief in the above cause on November 24, 2015. Through this original proceeding, relators sought to compel the trial court to vacate its November 23, 2015 order denying relators’ motion to compel the depositions of John Spellmann, individually and as executor of the estate of Velma Spellmann, Gerald Lewis Sheehan Jr., Jane Lynn Sheehan Michaels, and Lorene 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). H. Koopmann. Through their emergency motion, relators sought to stay litigation and the trial of this matter that was currently set for December 7, 2015. Real parties in interest John Spellmann, individually and as executor of the estate of Velma Spellmann, Gerald Lewis Sheehan Jr., Jane Lynn Sheehan Michaels, Ralph Koopmann, and Karen M. Koenig filed a response and objection to relators’ emergency motion for stay. This Court granted relators’ motion for emergency relief and ordered the trial court proceedings to be stayed and requested that the real parties in interest, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. Relators have now filed a motion to dismiss this original proceeding with prejudice. According to the motion, the parties have settled and compromised the issues raised in this original proceeding. Relators thus request that we dismiss this original proceeding with prejudice. The Court, having examined and fully considered relators’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. Accordingly, the Court LIFTS the stay previously imposed in this cause, GRANTS relators’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, and DISMISSES this cause with prejudice. Pending motions, if any, are DISMISSED as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). IT IS SO ORDERED. PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 16th day of December, 2015. 2