ILP, L.L.C., ERNESTO GONZALEZ AND MARIA DEL ROSARIO GONZALEZ v. MARK ANDY, INC. A/K/A COMCO, A/K/A UVT--Appeal from 389th District Court of Hidalgo County (Per Curiam)

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 13-12-00258-CV

Case Date: 11/15/2012

Plaintiff: ILP, L.L.C., ERNESTO GONZALEZ AND MARIA DEL ROSARIO GONZALEZ

Defendant: MARK ANDY, INC. A/K/A COMCO, A/K/A UVT--Appeal from 389th District Court of Hidalgo County (Per Cur

Preview:

NUMBER 13-12-00258-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

ILP, L.L.C., ERNESTO GONZALEZ AND  APPELLANTS,
MARIA DEL ROSARIO GONZALEZ,

v.

MARK ANDY, INC. A/K/A COMCO, A/K/A UVT, APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 389th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This matter is currently before the Court on the briefs and several pending motions.  After examining and fully considering the briefs and pending motions, the Court issues the following rulings and dismisses the appeal as stated herein.

As an initial matter, attorney Steven E. Garlock has filed a motion to appear pro hac vice.  In accordance with the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas, this motion is accompanied by a separate motion prepared by the resident practicing Texas attorney with whom Garlock would be associated in this case.  Having examined and fully considered these motions, the motion to appear pro hac vice and motion by resident attorney recommending pro hac vice admission are hereby GRANTED.
We now turn our attention to substantive issues pertaining to this appeal.  Appellants have filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal without prejudice on grounds that the appeal is interlocutory in nature.  On the certificate of conference for this motion, appellants have stated that appellee has indicated

Download 13-12-00258-cv.pdf