Krystal Jennifer Rodriguez and Yolanda Vives v. Ruben Compian Larraga

NUMBER 13-24-00440-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

KRYSTAL JENNIFER RODRIGUEZ
AND YOLANDA VIVES, Appellants,

v.

RUBEN COMPIAN LARRAGA, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 10
OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This cause is before the Court on appellants Krystal Jennifer Rodriguez and

Yolanda Vives’s “Unopposed Motion to Set Aside Trial Court’s Final Judgment Without

Regard to the Merits and Remand Case to Trial Court.”
On July 25, 2025, this case was abated and referred to mediation. On October 30,

2025, a notice was sent “request[ing] that the appellants advise [the Court] of the results

of mediation by Monday, November 3, 2025.” A joint status report was filed and signed

by the parties on October 31, 2025, informing the Court that “mediation was successful,

and the parties are in the process of preparing the appropriate motion to dispose of the

appeal.”

On November 26, 2025, appellants filed a motion advising the Court that the

parties have reached an agreement, “settling this matter and agreeing to remand this

case to the trial court for entry of an Agreed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.” Appellants

also advise that the parties agree that “all costs of the appeal will be taxed against the

party incurring the same” and “request that the mandate be issued immediately.” See

TEX. R. APP. P. 18.01(c), 42.1(a)(2)(B).

We construe appellants’ motion as a motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal.

See id. R. 42.1(a)(2)(B) (providing that, “[i]n accordance with an agreement signed by the

parties or their attorneys and filed with the clerk” we may “set aside the trial court’s

judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition

of judgment in accordance with the agreement”).

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ unopposed

motion, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See id. R. 42.1(a). We grant

the motion, reinstate the case, vacate the June 7, 2024 order without regard to the merits,

dismiss the appeal, and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in

accordance with the parties’ agreement. See id. R. 42.1(a)(2)(B); see also Menard v.

Cathey, No. 13-23-00396-CV, 2024 WL 5087389, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

2
Edinburg Dec. 12, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.); Estate of Steward, No. 13-23-00162-CV,

2023 WL 5486230, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 24, 2023, no pet.)

(mem. op.).

Additionally, and in accordance with the parties’ agreement, costs are taxed

against the party that incurred them. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). Having dismissed the

appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our

mandate will issue forthwith. See id. R. 18.1(c).

CLARISSA SILVA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
11th day of December, 2025.

3