NUMBER 13-02-015-CV AND 13-02-215-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,                                                          Appellant,

v.

EDMOND OCANAS,                                                                      Appellee.

On appeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

O P I N I O N O N M O T I O N F O R R E H E A R I N G

     Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Dorsey

                            Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

          Appellee has filed a motion for rehearing in cause number 13-02-015-CV. After reviewing the motion and our original opinion, we find the motion for rehearing should be denied, but that two corrections should be made to our original opinion in cause numbers 13-02-015-CV and 13-02-215-CV. Ford Motor Co. v. Ocanas, Nos. 13-02-015-CV & 13-02-215-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 3630, at *9-*14 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi April 22, 2004, no pet. h.).

          The last sentence of the first paragraph under subheading “1. Predominance” states “[w]e consider appellee’s claims for breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the DTPA to determine whether appellee demonstrated that common issues of law or fact predominate. See Henry Schein, Inc., 102 S.W.3d at 693.” This description is not correct. Accordingly, the last sentence of that paragraph is ordered changed to:

We consider appellee’s claims for breach of express warranties and violations of the DTPA to determine whether appellee demonstrated that common issues of law or fact predominate. See Henry Schein, Inc., 102 S.W.3d at 693.

          In the first sentence of the third paragraph under the subheading “a. Express Warranties and DTPA Violations,” we stated “[l]ike the plaintiffs in Henry Schein, Inc., appellees pleaded breach of express and implied warranties and DTPA ‘laundry list’ violations which require each class member to prove reliance as a prerequisite to recovery.” Because reliance is not a required element to recover for breach of implied warranties, this sentence is ordered changed to:

Like the plaintiffs in Henry Schein, Inc., appellees pleaded breach of express warranties and DTPA “laundry list” violations which require each class member to prove reliance as a prerequisite to recovery.

          Appellee’s motion for rehearing is denied.

                                                                        Rogelio Valdez,

                                                                        Chief Justice

Opinion delivered and filed

this 15^TH day of July, 2004.