Letha Pillai v. Jesus Vega and Dalia Vega

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 16, 2015
• Docket: 01-14-00215-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS

Appellate case name: Letha Pillai v. Jesus Vega and Dalia Vega

Appellate case number: 01-14-00215-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-68692

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

On June 5, 2014, the Court referred this case to mediation as requested by the agreed motion of appellant, Letha Pillai, and appellees, Jesus Vega and Dalia Vega. Soon thereafter, the mediator and appellees notified the Court that the parties had settled the matter and entered into a mediated settlement agreement. On July 17, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified the parties that the appeal might be dismissed unless the parties demonstrated, no later than August 31, 2014, that there was a live controversy as to the merits of the appeal between them. See Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000). Appellant responded, requesting that the appeal remain on the Court’s active docket “until notice is given that the settlement agreement has been carried out and completed[.]” On August 25, 2014, appellant, representing that appellees had not executed all documents necessary to effectuate the settlement, filed a “Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees.” Appellant next filed a “Supplement to Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees and for Sanctions” and a “Request for Emergency Hearing on Appellant’s Motion and Supplement to Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees and for Sanctions.” Appellant continues to represent that appellees have failed “to execute and return the agreed documents to conclude this matter” and have not “fulfilled their Agreement at Mediation . . . .” Appellant requests that we order appellees to execute the settlement documents and seeks sanctions against appellees. We deny appellant’s (1) Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees, (2) Supplement to Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees and for Sanctions, and (3) Request for Emergency Hearing on Appellant’s Motion and Supplement to Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees. See generally Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656, 658–59 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (stating that, when dispute regarding settlement agreement arises while underlying action is on appeal, party seeking enforcement must file separate breach of contract action). In the “Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement Agreement upon Appellees,” appellant states that the case “was settled at mediation on June 11, 2014.” Further, the mediator and appellees’ counsel have notified this Court that settlement was reached and the parties entered into a mediated settlement agreement. Accordingly, unless the parties to this appeal demonstrate, within 14 days of the date of this notice, that there is a live controversy between them as to the merits of this appeal, the appeal may be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Valley Baptist Med. Ctr., 33 S.W.3d at 822.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 15, 2015