Guadalupe Castro v. Texas Farm Bureau Underwriters, a Texas Corporation

Full text

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00185-CV ___________________________

GUADALUPE CASTRO, Appellant

V. TEXAS FARM BUREAU UNDERWRITERS, A TEXAS CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 342nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 342-335023-22

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

— 2 —

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Guadalupe Castro has appealed from the trial court’s “Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(3); Tex. R. Civ. P. 42. The parties have filed a “Stipulation for Dismissal Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.1,” stating that they “stipulate and agree to abate the appeal and dismiss the operative complaint pending before the [trial] court with prejudice once this appeal is abated (the ‘Agreement’), with each party to bear their own fees and costs.” The parties request that we render judgment effectuating the Agreement, remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the Agreement, and abate the appeal and permit trial-court proceedings to effectuate the Agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)–(C). It is our opinion that the parties’ requests should be granted in part and denied in part.1

Without regard to the merits, we set aside the trial court’s “Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification” and remand this case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ Agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B),

1 The parties ask us to render judgment effectuating the Agreement and to remand this case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the Agreement and to abate this appeal to allow trial-court proceedings to effectuate the Agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)–(C). But Rule 42.1(a)(2) permits us to render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement or to set aside the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement or to abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the agreement. Id. “[W]e cannot do all three or portions of all three.” Acosta v. Kay, No. 02-11-00396-CV, 2011 WL 5247880, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth Nov. 3, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)–(C).

— 3 —

43.2(d); Acosta, 2011 WL 5247880, at *1 (resolving parties’ joint dismissal motion under Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B) where motion requested relief under all three subsections of Rule 42.1(a)(2)); cf. Innovative Off. Sys., Inc. v. Johnson, 911 S.W.2d 387, 388 (Tex. 1995) (order) (granting parties’ joint motion by setting aside lower courts’ judgments and remanding case to trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement). We deny all other requested relief in the parties’ dismissal stipulation and dismiss as moot the parties’ pending “Joint Motion for Consideration of Sealed In Camera Trial Court Documents.”

We order each party to pay their own appellate costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice

Delivered: November 7, 2024