Hill Country-San Antonio Management Services, Inc. a.k.a. Hill Country Achievement ( Appellant/ Cross-Appellee) v. Rachel Trejo as next friend of Rene Trejo (Appellee/ Cross-Appellant) Appeal from 225th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00559-CV HILL COUNTRY-SAN ANTONIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. a.k.a. Hill Country Achievement, Appellant v. Rachel TREJO as next friend of Rene Trejo, Appellee From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012-CI-20045 Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 3, 2014 DISMISSED On February 12, 2014, this court issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s order dated August 5, 2013. On February 27, 2014, Appellant filed a motion for en banc reconsideration and this court requested Appellee file a response to Appellant’s motion. On July 22, 2014, Appellant filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Three days later, the Texas Supreme Court granted Appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition for review. Appellee did not file a response to the en banc motion. 04-13-00559-CV On September 23, 2014, we ordered Appellant to clarify whether the July 22, 2014 motion to dismiss sought (1) a dismissal of the motion for en banc reconsideration or (2) this court to withdraw the court’s opinion dated February 12, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c). On October 3, 2014, Appellant clarified its request seeking this court withdraw its February 12, 2014 opinion. Appellee’s subsequent response strongly opposed the withdrawal of the court’s opinion. Appellant’s request to withdraw this court’s February 12, 2014 opinion is denied. Appellant’s request to dismiss this appeal is granted and this appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM -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.
