Crox Quintanilla v. Law Office of Jerry J. Trevino, P.C.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-15-00105-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 21, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Crox Quintanilla is the appellant in the appeal against the Law Office of Jerry J. Trevino, P.C., and Jerry J. Trevino, the appellees, in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi, Texas. The appeal arises from the 347th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, concerning whether Quintanilla's petition to intervene in the case survived the plaintiff's motion to non-suit. The main legal question is whether the trial court could dismiss Quintanilla's pending motion to intervene alongside the plaintiff’s non-suit without having granted the intervention. The appellees argue that there was no error in the trial court's decision to dismiss the petition to intervene since there was no order allowing the intervention to proceed. The appellees' brief, submitted by attorney J. A. Canales, asserts that oral argument is unnecessary, and includes a detailed table of contents, a statement of facts, a summary of the argument, and legal citations supporting their position.

Appellee initiated a lawsuit against Randall Barrera and Rene Rodriguez, both individually and in his capacity as trustee, alleging breach of contract among other claims. Following the filing of a motion to nonsuit all parties, none of the original defendants appealed, removing them from the appellate proceedings. The Appellant sought to intervene, but the Appellee challenged this intervention and filed a Motion to Strike it. The Appellant did not receive a ruling on their petition to intervene before the trial court dismissed the Appellee’s claims on September 24, 2014. Subsequently, the trial court granted the Appellee's motion to dismiss the intervention on January 22, 2015, leading the Appellant to file an appeal.

The primary legal question is whether the Appellant's Petition to Intervene survived the Appellee's motion to nonsuit. The Appellee argues that the intervention was effectively nullified due to the nonsuit and the lack of a ruling on the intervention petition, asserting that there remained no active case for the Appellant to join. The Appellee contends that the trial court acted correctly in dismissing the intervention, citing a precedent which indicates that a Motion to Strike is necessary for challenging an intervention. Consequently, without a ruling favoring the intervention, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over it following the nonsuit.

The intervenor in a lawsuit must demonstrate a justiciable interest, either legal or equitable, to be allowed to participate, as established in Dorsaneo's Texas Litigation Guide and supported by case law, including Mendez v. Brewer and City of Port Arthur v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. In this instance, the Appellant's Petition to Intervene had not been heard or granted at the time of the nonsuit order, leading to the dismissal of both the case and the Motion to Intervene. The principles outlined in Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 60 and Rule 162, indicate that a voluntary dismissal takes effect upon the filing of a motion with the court, extinguishing the case before the intervention could be ruled on. Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the intervention. The Appellee requests that the court overrule the Appellant’s issues and affirm the trial court's judgment dismissing the Petition for Intervention. The brief is certified to comply with appellate procedural requirements and was served to relevant parties.