Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2021

Clear Diamond, Inc. and Kyle Wartenbee// Rebeca Zapata, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Flavio Zapata, Estela Zapata, and Sergio Zapata Montoya v. Rebecca Zapata, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Flavio Zapata // Cross-Appellee, Clear Diamond, Inc. and Kyle Wartenbee

Clear Diamond, Inc. and Kyle Wartenbee// Rebeca Zapata, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Flavio Zapata, Estela Zapata, and Sergio Zapata Montoya v. Rebecca Zapata, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Flavio Zapata // Cross-Appellee, Clear Diamond, Inc. and Kyle Wartenbee
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided August 13, 2021

Clear Diamond, Inc. and Kyle Wartenbee// Rebeca Zapata, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Flavio Zapata, Estela Zapata, and Sergio Zapata Montoya v. Rebecca Zapata, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Flavio Zapata // Cross-Appellee, Clear Diamond, Inc. and Kyle Wartenbee

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 13, 2021

NO. 03-20-00057-CV

Appellants, Clear Diamond, Inc. and Kyle Wartenbee // Cross-Appellants, Rebeca Zapata, individually and as representative of the Estate of Flavio Zapata, Estela Zapata, and Sergio Zapata Montoya v. Appellee, Rebecca Zapata, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Flavio Zapata // Cross-Appellees, Clear Diamond, Inc. and Kyle Wartenbee

APPEAL FROM THE 452ND DISTRICT COURT OF MCCULLOCH COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND KELLY AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on January 14, 2020 denying “Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Strike Pleadings Pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code” and the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on January 14, 2020 denying “Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue.” Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the orders. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s interlocutory orders. Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this Court and in the court below.

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