Bridgestone Corporation v. Castillo, Guillermo S. Hernandez--Appeal from 143rd District Court of Reeves County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 08-02-00083-CV

Case Date: 10/31/2002

Plaintiff: Bridgestone Corporation

Defendant: Castillo, Guillermo S. Hernandez--Appeal from 143rd District Court of Reeves County

Preview:Bridgestone Corporation v. Castillo, Guillermo S. Hernandez--Appeal from 143rd District Court of Reeves County
COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GUILLERMO S. HERNANDEZ CASTILLO, Appellee. ' ' ' ' ' ' No. 08-02-00083-CV Appeal from the 143rd District Court of Reeves County, Texas (TC# 01-08-17131-CVR) OPINION ON APPELLANT=S MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Before the Court is an interlocutory appeal from the district court=s denial of Bridgestone Corporation=s special appearance. Appellant Bridgestone Corporation submits this motion to vacate the trial court=s order and dismiss appeal because the plaintiff in the underlying matter has asked the Dallas County District Court to sign an order of nonsuit, dismissing the underlying matter. We vacate the trial court=s order denying the special appearance and

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/62010.html[8/20/2013 8:05:09 PM]

dismiss the appeal as moot.

Following the institution of this appeal, appellee Castillo filed its notice nonsuiting Bridgestone in the trial court. Rule 162 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure gives a plaintiff the right to take a nonsuit at any time before he has rested his case. Tex. R. Civ. P. 162. Accordingly, the nonsuit renders this appeal moot. The dismissal of the action against Bridgestone vitiates the earlier interlocutory order. See In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35, 38 (Tex. 1997); Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853, 854-55 (Tex. 1995). As the order denying Bridgestone Corporation=s special appearance is an interlocutory order not reflecting any judgment on the merits of the case, we vacate that order of the trial court. We vacate the trial court=s order denying Bridgestone=s special appearance, grant the appellant=s motion, and dismiss the interlocutory appeal as moot. SUSAN LARSEN, Justice October 31, 2002 Before Panel No. 1 Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ. (Do Not Publish)

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/62010.html[8/20/2013 8:05:09 PM]

Download 62010.pdf