Laredo Metro, Inc. v. Maria Diana Martinez--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Webb County

Annotate this Case
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00423-CV
LAREDO METRO, INC.,
Appellant
v.
Maria Diana MARTINEZ,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 2, Webb County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002-CVT-001437-C3
Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 22, 2004

REVERSED AND REMANDED

This is a restricted appeal. The only contested element is whether error is apparent on the face of the record. See, e.g., Norman Communications. v. Texas Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997) (listing elements required for successful restricted appeal). Laredo Metro, Inc. argues it has met this element because the face of the record establishes that Lillian Martinez signed the green card accompanying service of process; but it does not establish that Martinez is Laredo Metro's president, vice-president, or registered agent. We agree. See, e.g., In re Vlasak, No. 04-04-00139-CV, 2004 WL 1336289, at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio June 16, 2004, orig. proceeding) (noting that, after trial court's plenary power has expired, defect in service must be reviewed by bill of review or restricted appeal); Carmona v. Bunzl Distrib., 76 S.W.3d 566, 568 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (holding that to uphold default judgment, record must affirmatively show an appearance by defendant, proper service of citation on defendant, or a written waiver of citation); Tex. Bus. Corp. Act Ann. art. 2.11 (Vernon 2003) (president, all vice-presidents, and registered agent are agents of corporation upon whom process may be served).

Martinez apparently concedes that the record does not establish proper service and instead argues that the "rule should not continue under Texas jurisprudence" "[b]ecause rigid application of the rules of strict compliance work an injury to Martinez." We are not at liberty, however, to disregard well-established Texas law. Martinez also argues that we should assume the "proper representatives" received "actual notice of the lawsuit" because we may take judicial notice that Laredo Metro is housed in a "relatively small" building "appraised [at] $192,910.00." But even if we were to accept Martinez's invitation to take judicial notice of the size of the building in which Laredo Metro is housed (an invitation we decline), it does not necessarily follow that the employee who signed the green card forwarded the process to Laredo Metro's president, vice-president, or registered agent.

Because Laredo Metro has met the requirements for a restricted appeal, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.