Robstown Hardware Co. v. Ideus, 04-22-00064-CV

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtLuz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
PartiesROBSTOWN HARDWARE COMPANY and Deere & Company, Appellants v. Heather J. IDEUS and Arlen Ideus, Appellees
Docket Number04-22-00064-CV
Decision Date27 September 2022

ROBSTOWN HARDWARE COMPANY and Deere & Company, Appellants
v.

Heather J. IDEUS and Arlen Ideus, Appellees

No. 04-22-00064-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

September 27, 2022


From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas Trial Court No. DC-21-175 Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On July 20, 2022, we dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction after the parties filed notices indicating appellants removed the case from state district court to federal court, where it is now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-132. On August 3, 2022, appellants filed a motion for rehearing, arguing this court erred when it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because under Meyerland Co. v. F.D.I.C., an intermediate court's dismissal order is void if it is entered after the case is removed to federal court. Appellants contend this court should have abated the case instead of dismissing it. Appellees filed a response, arguing this court's opinion was proper based on recent authority from the Dallas and El Paso intermediate courts of appeal who dismissed appeals for lack of jurisdiction after removal actions had been filed. See In re Zhou, No. 14-21-00424-CV, 2021 WL 4537849 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 5, 2021, orig. proceeding) (dismissing original proceeding for lack of jurisdiction following filing of notice of removal); Russell v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 05-10-00563-CV, 2010 WL 2839633 (Tex. App.-Dallas July 21, 2010, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction after case removed from state to federal court).

After considering the motion and response, we agree with appellants. We therefore grant appellants' motion for rehearing, withdraw this court's opinion and order issued on July 20, 2022, and abate this matter. See Meyerland Co. v. F.D.I.C., 848 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Tex. 1993) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d)); EOG Resources, Inc. v. Gutierrez Vela, No. 04-02-00168-CV, 2003 WL 21918590, at *1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 13, 2003) (per curiam). For administrative

1

purposes, the appeal will be treated as a closed case unless and until it is reinstated by court order issued upon the filing of a certified copy of a remand order.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 27th day of September,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT