Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc. v. John Victor Castillo

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 29, 2025
• Docket: 13-24-00583-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00583-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

DOLGENCORP OF TEXAS, INC., Appellant,

v.

JOHN VICTOR CASTILLO, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca

This matter is before the Court on an agreed motion to effectuate settlement. The

parties have entered a formal settlement agreement, and appellants request that we lift

the abatement, reinstate the case, vacate the trial court’s judgment, dismiss with prejudice

appellee's claims against appellant, order release of surety on the supersedeas bond, tax costs of the appeal against the parties incurring the same, and direct the clerk to

immediately issue mandate.

The parties’ signed agreement was not filed with the Clerk of the Court, so the

agreed motion is construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal as contemplated by Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1) (allowing this Court

to dispose of an appeal on motion of appellant, if such a disposition would not prevent a

party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled). Furthermore, we may

vacate trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal. See id. R. 43.2(e).

Upon review of the agreed motion and the relief requested, and in consideration

of the judgments permitted by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we grant the

agreed motion in part and deny in part as follows: we reinstate the appeal, vacate the trial

court’s final judgment entered in 2018-CCV-61618-1, and dismiss the appeal.

Furthermore, we order the release of Atlantic Special Insurance Company on the

supersedeas bond, and costs are taxed against the party incurring the same, in

accordance with the parties’ apparent agreement.

Regarding the mandate, the parties have not shown cause for expediting the

issuance of the mandate; therefore, at this time, the request to expedite issuance of the

mandate is denied.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 29th day of August, 2025