Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BARBARA PETROHAN, AS MEMBER/MANAGER OF ANIMAL MEDICAL CENTER OF MCALLEN, L.L.C., Appellant, v. ROBERT ZAMORANO JR., AS MEMBER/MANAGER OF ANIMAL MEDICAL CENTER OF MCALLEN, L.L.C., Appellee. IN RE: BARBARA PETROHAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In cause number 13-16-00506-CV, appellant Barbara Petrohan as member/manager of Animal Medical Center of McAllen, L.L.C. (Animal Medical Center), appeals a final summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee Roberto Zamorano as member/manager of Animal Medical Center. The summary judgment orders “the winding up and termination” of Animal Medical Center. See TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE ANN. § 11.314 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). Petrohan further appeals a post-judgment order appointing Gil Peralez as receiver for the dissolution of the company.
In cause number 13-16-00507-CV, Petrohan as member/manager of Animal Medical Center filed a petition for writ of injunction seeking to prevent the receiver Peralez from taking any action to manage, dissolve, or wind up Animal Medical Center until Petrohan's appeal in cause number 13-16-00506-CV has been finally determined. This Court granted that request, in part, insofar as we directed receiver Peralez to refrain from taking any action to dissolve or wind up Animal Medical Center, and denied the request, in part, as we directed receiver Peralez to conserve Animal Medical Center and its business and to avoid any damage to the parties interested in this entity.
The parties to these matters have now filed an “Agreed Joint Motion for Disposition Pursuant to Settlement” in each of these causes. According to the motions, the appeal and original proceeding have been resolved by agreement, and thus, the parties request that we dismiss the appeal and original proceeding and order that all costs shall be borne by the party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f), 43.6.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the agreed joint motions for disposition pursuant to settlement, is of the opinion that they should be granted. In the interests of judicial economy, we issue this consolidated opinion addressing both causes. We REINSTATE these matters, LIFT the stay previously imposed in these causes, GRANT the joint motions for disposition pursuant to settlement, and DISMISS this appeal and original proceeding. Costs will be taxed against the party incurring same. See id. R. 42.1(d).
GINA M. BENAVIDES, Justice
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: NUMBER 13-16-00506-CV, NUMBER 13-16-00507-CV
Decided: February 01, 2017
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)