Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2008

Union Carbide Corporation v. Jack Loftin

Union Carbide Corporation v. Jack Loftin
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided May 29, 2008

Union Carbide Corporation v. Jack Loftin

Opinion

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________



NO. 09-08-061 CV

____________________



UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, ET AL., Appellants



V.



JACK LOFTIN, ET AL., Appellees




On Appeal from the 128th District Court

Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. A-070037-C; AC; BC; CC; DC; EC




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lyondell-Citgo Refining LP n/k/a Houston Refining LP and Lyondell-Citgo Refining Company, Ltd. n/k/a Houston Refining LP, filed a motion to dismiss their appeal as to Leonel Sandoval, Jr. and Beatrice Sandoval. Lyondell-Citgo Refining LP n/k/a Houston Refining LP and Lyondell-Citgo Refining Company, Ltd. n/k/a Houston Refining LP wish to maintain their accelerated appeal of the denial of their motions to transfer venue as to all of the other plaintiffs in the underlying suit. Other parties also filed notices of appeal but have not joined the motion to dismiss filed by Lyondell-Citgo Refining LP n/k/a Houston Refining LP and Lyondell-Citgo Refining Company, Ltd. n/k/a Houston Refining LP. The motion is voluntarily made by these appellants prior to any decision of this Court and should be granted. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No party filed an objection to the motion to dismiss filed by Lyondell-Citgo Refining LP n/k/a Houston Refining LP and Lyondell-Citgo Refining Company, Ltd. n/k/a Houston Refining LP. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeals of Lyondell-Citgo Refining LP n/k/a Houston Refining LP and Lyondell-Citgo Refining Company, Ltd. n/k/a Houston Refining LP are dismissed as to Leonel Sandoval, Jr. and Beatrice Sandoval. The appeals by Lyondell-Citgo Refining LP n/k/a Houston Refining LP and Lyondell-Citgo Refining Company, Ltd. n/k/a Houston Refining LP of the denial of their motions to transfer venue as to all other plaintiffs in the underlying suit shall continue. The appeal remains on the Court's active docket. Except as to parties whose appeals were discontinued by Memorandum Opinion delivered April 3, 2008, the appeal shall proceed as to all parties that filed notices of appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.



PER CURIAM



Opinion Delivered May 29, 2008

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.