in Re Sobeyda L. Smith, Daniel Rebollar, and Mariely Rebollar
This text of in Re Sobeyda L. Smith, Daniel Rebollar, and Mariely Rebollar (in Re Sobeyda L. Smith, Daniel Rebollar, and Mariely Rebollar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00253-CV
COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
EDINBURG CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, SILVIA LEDESMA, AND CARLOS GUZMAN, Appellants,
v.
SOBEYDA I. SMITH, DANIEL REBOLLAR, AND MARIELY REBOLLAR, Appellees.
On appeal from the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
NUMBER 13-16-00254-CV
COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE SOBEYDA I. SMITH, DANIEL REBOLLAR, AND MARIELY REBOLLAR
On Petition for Writ of Injunction. ORDER
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Order Per Curiam
On May 5, 2016 in our cause number 13-16-00253-CV, appellants Edinburg
Consolidated Independent School District (“ECISD”), Silvia Ledesma, and Carlos
Guzman filed a “Notice of Accelerated Appeal and Stay” through which they seek to
appeal a May 5, 2016 order granting a temporary injunction as requested by Sobeyda I.
Smith, Daniel Rebollar, and Mariely Rebollar. Appellants also appeal a May 5, 2016
order denying their plea to the jurisdiction. Through this notice of appeal, appellants
invoked Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.1(b) and Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code section 6.004, thereby automatically staying the order granting the
temporary injunction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 29.1(b) (“Perfecting an appeal from an order
granting interlocutory relief does not suspend the order appealed from unless . . . the
appellant is entitled to supersede the order without security by filing a notice of appeal.”);
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 6.004 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.) (“A school
district may institute and prosecute suits without giving security for cost and may appeal
from judgment without giving supersedeas or cost bond.”). Further, in light of their appeal
of the order denying the plea to the jurisdiction, appellants further invoked Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(b) to stay “all other proceedings in the trial
court pending resolution” of this appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §
51.014(b) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.) (providing that an interlocutory appeal of
an order, such as one granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction, but other than one
granting or refusing a temporary injunction, “stays the commencement of a trial in the trial
court pending resolution of the appeal,” and an interlocutory appeal of an order granting
2 or denying a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit “also stays all other
proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of that appeal.”).
On May 6, 2016, in our cause number 13-16-00254-CV, the appellees filed a
petition for writ of injunction and an emergency motion for temporary relief pending
determination of the merits of the petition. Appellees/relators seek an order enjoining
appellants from taking certain actions while this matter remains pending, or alternatively,
requiring them to comply with the trial court’s temporary injunction until the original
proceeding has been resolved. Appellees/relators claim that this Court should grant a
stay because ECISD, despite the temporary injunction requiring it to calculate the class
rankings of the 2016 graduating seniors’ grade point averages and class rankings by
including ten points for a dual enrollment computer science class, has publically
announced its intention to proceed with its 2016 class rankings without consideration of
the dual enrollment class. Appellees/relators contend that without emergency relief, the
appeal will be rendered moot.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the emergency motion for
temporary relief, is of the opinion that it should be granted. The emergency motion for
temporary relief is hereby GRANTED, and we ORDER that the trial court’s May 5, 2016
temporary injunction will remain in effect until further order of this Court. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 29.3 (“When an appeal from an interlocutory order is perfected, the appellate court
may make any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights until disposition
of the appeal . . . .”); Id. R. 52.10(b) (“The court—on motion of any party or on its own
initiative—may without notice grant any just relief pending the court’s action on the
petition.”). We further order appellants/real parties in interest, or any others whose
3 interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, to file a response to the petition for
writ of injunction by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May, 11, 2016. See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 6th day of May, 2016.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Sobeyda L. Smith, Daniel Rebollar, and Mariely Rebollar, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sobeyda-l-smith-daniel-rebollar-and-mariely-rebollar-texapp-2016.