Kingwood Diamond, Inc., Obaid Uddin and OHK Global, Inc. v. Lonestar Petroleum, LP

Opinion

Opinion issued December 31, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00569-CV ——————————— KINGWOOD DIAMOND, INC., OBAID UDDIN, AND OHK GLOBAL, INC., Appellants V. LONESTAR PETROLEUM, LP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2019-27229

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellee Lonestar Petroleum, LP has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal

based upon an executed Rule 11 agreement requiring dismissal of the appeal. More than ten days have elapsed since the filing of the motion, and appellants did not

respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.1

Appellee asserts, among other things, in its motion to dismiss that (1) the

parties executed a Rule 11 agreement and filed the agreement with the district court

on March 6, 2024, and (2) the Rule 11 agreement required appellants to dismiss their

appeal by March 11, 2024. Appellee’s motion to dismiss includes a copy of the

executed Rule 11 agreement filed with the district court. Appellee further asserts that

the Rule 11 agreement was executed by appellants and their attorney after (1)

appellants conferred with their attorney, and (2) the Rule 11 agreement was

translated for appellant Obaid Uddin, who was also acting as the corporate

representative of appellants OHK Global, Inc., and Kingwood Diamond, Inc.

A Rule 11 agreement between parties is valid if it is in writing, signed, and

filed as part of the record. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 11 (“Unless otherwise provided in

these rules, no agreement between attorneys or parties touching any suit pending

will be enforced unless it be in writing, signed and filed with the papers as part of

the record, or unless it be made in open court and entered of record.”). A trial court

has a ministerial duty to enforce a valid Rule 11 agreement in strict accordance with

1 This appeal was previously dismissed on March 7, 2024 because appellants failed to pay all required fees. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). Appellants later filed an opposed motion for rehearing seeking reinstatement of the appeal after paying the required fees. On May 2, 2024, our court granted rehearing, withdrew our opinion dismissing the appeal, and reinstated the case on the active docket. 2 the agreement of the parties. Fed. Lanes, Inc. v. City of Hous., 905 S.W.2d 686, 690

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied).

Here, the parties entered into a valid Rule 11 agreement by signing a written

agreement and filing the agreement with the district court. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 11.

As part of that agreement, appellants agreed to “withdraw all appeals and emergency

motions filed with any Court of Appeals in this matter no later than March 11, 2024.”

This portion of the Rule 11 agreement is a valid waiver of appellants’ right to appeal

and entitles appellee to have the appeal dismissed.2 See Emerson v. Emerson, 559

S.W.3d 727, 736-37 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (“Because

[appellant] expressly agreed to waive her rights to appeal the trial court’s rulings on

her requests for attorney’s fees and interest and because [appellant] has not shown

that the agreement is unenforceable, we must enforce the parties’ agreement and

dismiss [appellant’s] appeal as to these issues.”); Escalante v. L J F, Inc., No. 02-

22-00004-CV, 2022 WL 1682424, at *1 (Tex. App. —Fort Worth May 26, 2022, no

pet.) (“If the parties agree to waive their right to appeal, an appellee is entitled to

have the appeal dismissed.”); see also Connor v. Connor, No. 01-17-00268-CV,

2018 WL 3542911, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 24, 2018, pet. denied)

2 Although appellants’ attorney claims in an earlier pleading that he also is an appellant and was not a party to the Rule 11 agreement, he has not filed a notice of appeal on behalf of himself—he filed the notice of appeal only on behalf of Kingwood Diamond, Inc., Obaid Uddin, and OHK Global, Inc. 3 (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal based on waiver of right to appeal in settlement

agreement).

Appellants have not demonstrated that the Rule 11 agreement was revoked

and there is no indication that appellants secured a judicial determination that the

agreement was unenforceable. See Connor, 2018 WL 3542911, at *1. Nor have

appellants provided evidence demonstrating that the agreement is void due to duress.

See Emerson, 559 S.W.3d at 734-35. A claim of duress requires proof that (1) a party

made a threat or took action without legal justification; (2) the threat or action was

of such a character as to destroy the other party’s free agency; (3) the threat or action

overcame the opposing party’s free will and caused the party to do that which the

party otherwise would not have done and was not legally bound to do; (4) the

restraint was imminent; and (5) the opposing party had no present means of

protection. McMahan v. Greenwood, 108 S.W.3d 467, 482 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellee’s

request for sanctions is denied. We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Countiss.