Gene Marshall Betts Revocable Trust Wild Basin Investments LLC Timmins Living Trust Ken Shifrin Edward W. Charrier Lance Adams Matula Family, LP – Class 1 Star Vista Capital, LLC George Schaefer Paul Michael Bedell John Wages, Prospect Hill Capital, LLC Woodgen, LLC And Craig Dubois v. Phunware, Inc. F/K/A Stellar Acquisition III, Inc. Phunware OpCo, Inc. F/K/A Phunware, Inc. Alan Knitowski Luan Dang Randall Crowder Matt Aune Prokopios Akis Tsirigakis George Syllantavos Lori Tauber Marcus Kathy Tan Mayor Keith Cowan Winston Damarillo Chase Fraser John Kahan And Eric Manlunas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 24, 2022
• Docket: 13-22-00023-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-22-00023-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ GENE MARSHALL BETTS REVOCABLE TRUST; WILD BASIN INVESTMENTS LLC; TIMMINS LIVING TRUST; KEN SHIFRIN; EDWARD W. CHARRIER; LANCE ADAMS; MATULA FAMILY, LP – CLASS 1; STAR VISTA CAPITAL, LLC; GEORGE SCHAEFER; PAUL MICHAEL BEDELL; JOHN WAGES, PROSPECT HILL CAPITAL, LLC; WOODGEN, LLC; AND CRAIG DUBOIS, Appellants, v. PHUNWARE, INC. F/K/A STELLAR ACQUISITION III, INC.; PHUNWARE OPCO, INC. F/K/A PHUNWARE, INC.; ALAN KNITOWSKI; LUAN DANG; RANDALL CROWDER; MATT AUNE; PROKOPIOS AKIS TSIRIGAKIS; GEORGE SYLLANTAVOS; LORI TAUBER MARCUS; KATHY TAN MAYOR; KEITH COWAN; WINSTON DAMARILLO; CHASE FRASER; JOHN KAHAN; AND ERIC MANLUNAS, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 126th District Court of Travis County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant

to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN. § 73.001. In their unopposed motion to dismiss appeal, appellants now request

dismissal based on a forum selection clause, as plaintiffs have filed suit in the Court of

Chancery of the State of Delaware. The suit filed in the State of Delaware asserts the

claims and causes of action also asserted in this matter; therefore, the appeal is no longer

necessary.

The Court, having considered the motion, is of the opinion that the motion should

be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1),(2). Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted,

and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs will be taxed against the appellants. See TEX.

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

appellant."). Because the appeal is dismissed at appellants’ request, no motion for

rehearing will be entertained.

GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice

Delivered and filed on the 24th day of March, 2022.