DocketNumber： 13-22-00023-CV
Filed Date： 3/24/2022
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 3/28/2022
NUMBER 13-22-00023-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
GENE MARSHALL BETTS REVOCABLE
TRUST; WILD BASIN INVESTMENTS LLC;
TIMMINS LIVING TRUST; KEN SHIFRIN;
EDWARD W. CHARRIER; LANCE ADAMS;
MATULA FAMILY, LP – CLASS 1;
STAR VISTA CAPITAL, LLC; GEORGE
SCHAEFER; PAUL MICHAEL BEDELL;
JOHN WAGES, PROSPECT HILL
CAPITAL, LLC; WOODGEN, LLC; AND
CRAIG DUBOIS, Appellants,
v.
PHUNWARE, INC. F/K/A STELLAR
ACQUISITION III, INC.; PHUNWARE
OPCO, INC. F/K/A PHUNWARE, INC.;
ALAN KNITOWSKI; LUAN DANG;
RANDALL CROWDER; MATT AUNE;
PROKOPIOS AKIS TSIRIGAKIS;
GEORGE SYLLANTAVOS; LORI
TAUBER MARCUS; KATHY TAN
MAYOR; KEITH COWAN; WINSTON
DAMARILLO; CHASE FRASER;
JOHN KAHAN; AND ERIC MANLUNAS, Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 126th District Court
of Travis County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant
to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T
CODE ANN. § 73.001. In their unopposed motion to dismiss appeal, appellants now request
dismissal based on a forum selection clause, as plaintiffs have filed suit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. The suit filed in the State of Delaware asserts the
claims and causes of action also asserted in this matter; therefore, the appeal is no longer
necessary.
The Court, having considered the motion, is of the opinion that the motion should
be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1),(2). Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted,
and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs will be taxed against the appellants. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the
appellant."). Because the appeal is dismissed at appellants’ request, no motion for
rehearing will be entertained.
GINA M. BENAVIDES
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
24th day of March, 2022.
2