Joe Espinoza and Maria Espinoza v. Daniel M. L. Hernandez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 20, 2009
• Docket: 13-07-00757-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-07-00757-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JOE ESPINOZA AND MARIA ESPINOZA, Appellants,

v.

DANIEL M.L. HERNANDEZ, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellants, Joe Espinoza and Maria Espinoza (“the Espinozas”), appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to appellee, Daniel Hernandez. Hernandez filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that the matter should be dismissed because the underlying judgment had been dismissed in bankruptcy court.1 A response was requested. The Espinoza’s response stated that they are not oppose to the motion to dismiss.

1 In the m otion to dism iss, Hernandez states that this Court was advised of the bankruptcy proceeding. No notice of bankruptcy appears in the record. The Court, having considered the documents on file and the unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX . R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellants. See TEX . R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellants."). Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 20th day of August, 2009.