Mirta Zorrilla v. Aypco Construction II, LLC and Jose Luis Munoz ( 2012 )

NUMBER 13-12-00359-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG MIRTA ZORRILLA, Appellant, v. AYPCO CONSTRUCTION II, LLC Appellees. AND JOSE LUIS MUNOZ, On appeal from the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ORDER Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Vela Order Per Curiam On September 14, 2012, appellant, Mirta Zorrilla,1 filed a “Motion for Review of Supersedeas Amount and Request for Emergency Temporary Relief.” By this motion, she requests that we (1) stay enforcement of and execution on the underlying judgment, including staying all post-judgment discovery; (2) allow her to post supersedeas in the amount of $119,658.22; and (3) review the supersedeas amount ordered by the trial 1 Appellant’s name is alternately spelled “Zorrilla” in some of the pleadings underlying this appeal and “Zorilla” in others. court as excessive. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4. Having examined and fully considered the motion, we conclude that this motion should be carried with the case in part, denied in part, and granted in part, as specifically ordered herein. Appellant’s request for emergency temporary relief is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. We GRANT this request insofar as the order issued by the trial court requiring supersedeas in the amount of $265,158.21 is hereby ordered STAYED. Appellant has offered to supersede the judgment in the amount of $119,658.22 upon the issuance of a stay and pending our review of this issue, and we direct her to proceed in accordance with this suggestion. We DENY the requested stay to the extent that appellant’s request for a stay encompasses post-judgment discovery. The Court requests that appellees, AYPCO Construction II, L.L.C. and Jorge Luis Munoz, file a response to the motion for review of supersedeas amount within ten days from the date of this order. Appellant’s motion for review of supersedeas amount will be CARRIED WITH THE CASE pending review of the response and further order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 14th day of September, 2012. 2