Glasstex, Inc. v. Arch Aluminum and Glass Co. Inc., and James P. Grissom ( 2015 )

NUMBER 13-07-00483-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
GLASSTEX, INC., Appellant,
v.
ARCH ALUMINUM AND GLASS CO. INC.,
AND JAMES P. GRISSOM, Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Order Per Curiam
This case has been pending on this Court’s docket since July 12, 2007. The case
was orally argued by the parties on October 22, 2009, and on February 16, 2010, Arch
filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy notifying this Court that Arch had filed a Chapter 11
Bankruptcy in Florida federal court. As a result, we abated this appeal due to Arch’s
filing. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 8.
While in abatement, this Court has periodically requested status updates from both
parties. On August 19, 2015, Arch and Grissom filed its latest status report and stated
that “substantially all of the assets of Arch were sold” and that “the bankruptcy court has
exclusive jurisdiction over any claims against Arch[,] and [Arch] lacks assets to pay any
judgment or standing to continue any litigation in this Court.” Arch further asserted that
Glasstex “failed or refused to file” a claim against it in the bankruptcy court. As a result,
Arch asks this Court to dismiss Glasstex’s appeal for failing to file a status report with this
Court, or obtain an order lifting the automatic stay in bankruptcy court and file that order
with this Court. In its response, Glasstex asserts that Arch has failed to provide any
argument or proof to dismiss this case, and that this Court should render an opinion on
the merits of the appeal.
After considering the filings in this case and the arguments of the parties, this Court
is of the opinion that this case shall be REINSTATED for full consideration of the appeal
on its merits.
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
18th day of December, 2015.
2