Gabriel Alvarado and Piedad Alvarado, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, G.A.A. and V.A.A., and Provost Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P. v. Puffer-Sweiven Lp, Puffer-Sweivan Gp, Inc., International Flow Services Gp, Inc.,verde Holdings, Inc., International Flow Services, Lp, Puffer-Sweivan Specialties, Inc., and Citgo Refining and Chemicals Company, L.P. and Real-Party-In-Interest American I

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 7, 2012
• Docket: 13-11-00334-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-11-00334-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

GABRIEL ALVARADO AND PIEDAD ALVARADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN, G.A.A. AND V.A.A., AND PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, L.L.P., Appellants,

v.

PUFFER-SWEIVEN LP, PUFFER-SWEIVEN GP, INC., INTERNATIONAL FLOW SERVICES, GP INC., VERDE HOLDINGS, INC., INTERNATIONAL FLOW SERVICES, LP, PUFFER-SWEIVEN SPECIALTIES, INC., CITGO REFINING AND CHEMICALS COMPANY, L.P. AND REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellants Gabriel Alvarado and Piedad Alvarado, individually and on behalf of

their minor children, G.A.A. and V.A.A., and Provost Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P., perfected

an appeal from a judgment entered by the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas,

in cause number 09-6072-G. Appellants have filed an unopposed motion for voluntary

dismissal of the appeal on grounds that the parties have fully resolved the controversies

between them. Appellants request that this Court dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having abated the appeal on January 9, 2012 pending settlement, now

REINSTATES the appeal. Further, considering the documents on file and appellants'

unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, the Court is of the opinion that the motion

should be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellants' unopposed motion to

dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the

agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the

appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellants' request, no motion for

rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 7th day of June, 2012.