Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 10, 2020
Docket01-19-00049-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC (Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC) 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.

Bluebook
Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

SECOND CONTINUING ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC Appellate case number: 01-19-00049-CV Trial court case number: 2018-66742 Trial court: 268th District Court of Harris County

On June 13, 2019, appellees, David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC (collectively “appellees”), filed a motion “to abate this appeal pending a trial court determination as to whether this case had been rendered moot by a binding compromise settlement agreement.” See Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656, 658–59 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (explaining if settlement dispute arises while underlying action is on appeal party seeking enforcement must file separate breach of contract action and appeal should be abated); Tony’s Barbeque & Steakhouse, Inc. v. Three Points Invs., Inc., 527 S.W.3d 686, 689 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (“If the settlement dispute does not arise until the cause is on appeal, then claims for the breach or enforcement of the settlement agreement must be filed as a separate cause and the appeal abated pending resolution of the settlement-agreement dispute.”). We granted appellees’ motion and requested that appellees, no later than September 30, 2019, file a report advising the Court of the status of any trial court proceedings. On September 11, 2019, appellees filed a “Status Report” advising the Court that they had filed suit against appellant “seeking enforcement of” the parties’ purported post-judgment settlement agreement. See Mantas, 925 S.W.2d at 658–59; Tony’s Barbeque, 527 S.W.3d at 689. Thus, on November 26, 2019, we directed appellees to file another report advising the Court of the status of any trial court proceedings no later than 60 days from the date of our order. On January 14, 2020, appellees filed a “Second Status Report” advising the Court that proceedings in the trial court were on-going. Accordingly, we direct appellees, no later than 90 days from the date of this order, to file another report advising the Court of the status of any trial court proceedings. If appellees do not respond as directed, the case may be reinstated on the Court’s active docket and the appeal may proceed under the applicable Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The appeal remains abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Julie Countiss______________________________________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __March 10, 2020____

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals
925 S.W.2d 656 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)
Tony's Barbeque & Steakhouse, Inc. v. Three Points Investments, Ltd.
527 S.W.3d 686 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tetra-technologies-inc-v-david-alleman-and-alleman-consulting-llc-texapp-2020.