Autobuses Ejecutivos, LLC and Omnibus Mexicanos, SA De CV v. Agustina Cuevas, Individually and as next friend of G.C., a minor; and Monica Cuevas, Individually, Maria Rosalina Perez, Individually and as next friend of C.P., Jr. and A.P., minorsAppeal from 101st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DENY; and Opinion Filed December 4, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01379-CV AUTOBUSES EJECUTIVOS, LLC AND OMNIBUS MEXICANOS, SA DE CV, Petitioners V. AGUSTINA CUEVAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF G.C., A MINOR; AND MONICA CUEVAS, INDIVIDUALLY; MARIA ROSALINA PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF C.P., JR. AND A.P., MINORS, Respondents On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-07459 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans Opinion by Justice O'Neill The Court has before it petitioners October 4, 2013 petition for permissive appeal and motion to stay; respondents October 14, 2013 response to the petition, and petitioners October 21, 2013 reply in support of the petition. Because petitioners have not shown that they meet the required standard, we DENY the petition. Respondents sued petitioners for personal injuries respondents say they sustained after a bus accident in Mexico. The bus was owned by petitioner Omnibus Mexicanos, SA de CV; respondents claim to have purchased their tickets from petitioner Autobuses Ejecutivos, LLC. The bus tickets stated, in case of a dispute or claim resulting from the services rendered . . . the passenger accepts and acknowledges the validity and application of the authority and jurisdiction of the applicable Mexican Law and Regulations and of the courts of this same country. Based on this language, petitioners filed a motion for application of foreign law, asking the trial court to apply the laws of Mexico. The trial court denied the motion and ruled that Texas law would apply. The trial court also granted petitioners the right to immediately appeal this ruling. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d) (West Supp. 2013). An appeal may be taken from an otherwise unappealable interlocutory order of the trial court when the trial court gives its permission and (1) the order to be appealed involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (2) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Id. Petitioners have not shown that they meet this standard. Although petitioners claim that without a decision from this Court on the choice of law issue they will have to do additional discovery, we conclude that this issue will not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Accordingly, we deny the petition for permissive appeal and motion to stay. /Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE 131379F.P05 2
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.
