MRC Permian Company/Holland Acquisitions, Inc., D/B/A Holland Services v. Holland Acquisitions, Inc., D/B/A Holland Services/MRC Permian Company

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
————————————

No. 08-21-00065-CV
————————————

MRC Permian Company/Holland Acquisitions, Inc., d/b/a Holland Services,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee

v.

Holland Acquisitions, Inc., d/b/a Holland Services/MRC Permian Company,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant

On Appeal from the 143rd District Court
Loving County, Texas
Trial Court No. 17-06-869

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N
On the Court’s own motion, we lift our abatement order dated April 28, 2021, reinstate this

appeal, and we dismiss the appeal for the reasons explained below.
In May 2019, MRC Permian Company filed a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order

granting partial summary judgment against it, naming numerous parties as Appellees. The named

Appellees, including Holland Acquisitions, Inc. d/b/a Holland Services (Holland), filed cross

appeals. The appeal was initially docketed in this Court as Cause Number 08-19-00124-CV. On

March 18, 2021, Holland filed a suggestion of bankruptcy. On April 28, 2021, we entered orders

severing and abating the appeal with respect to Holland and created a new cause number for the

Holland appeal, Cause No. 08-21-00065-CV. We further directed the parties to inform us when

the bankruptcy terminated. On the same day we severed that appeal, we issued an opinion in the

case that remained under Cause Number 08-19-00124-CV. MRC Permian Co. v. Point Energy

Partners Permian LLC, 624 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021). On April 21, 2023, the Texas

Supreme Court reversed our decision, rendered judgment in part, and remanded certain issues to

this Court to resolve in that case. Point Energy Partners Permian, LLC v. MRC Permian Co., 669

S.W.3d 796, 800 (Tex. 2023).

On May 3, 2023, while Cause Number 08-19-00124-CV remained pending before the

Texas Supreme Court, we ordered the parties in this case to file a motion or response regarding

the status of Holland’s bankruptcy. On May 17, 2023, Holland responded and informed us that the

bankruptcy proceeding remained pending, that its assets had been liquidated, and that final

distributions from the bankruptcy estate would likely occur a few weeks thereafter. Over a year

later, Holland’s counsel, Philip Vickers, filed an unopposed motion to withdraw as counsel. In the

motion, Vickers notified the Court that the bankruptcy proceeding had terminated on March 11,

2024. He thus requested that he and his firm be permitted to withdraw from representing Holland

in this appeal. We granted the motion to withdraw in July of 2024.

2
We then issued another order on August 7, 2024, requesting both parties to file letter briefs

updating the Court on the status of the bankruptcy and to advise the Court on the effect of the

bankruptcy termination on the dispute between them. We notified the parties that failure to respond

would result in dismissal of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c). Holland did not respond

to our order, but MRC filed a letter brief agreeing that the bankruptcy proceedings had closed.

Additionally, on August 27, 2024, MRC requested we vacate the trial court’s judgment in part and

remand to the trial court to allow the parties to amend their pleadings or complete other steps

necessary to develop a record on the bankruptcy issue. By order issued September 27, 2024, we

denied MRC’s request to reverse the summary judgment. Instead, we extended the abatement of

this appeal and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to develop a record on whether and to

what extent the bankruptcy proceeding resolved the claims and counterclaims of the parties in this

appeal.

The trial court held a hearing and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. 1 The trial

court found that the Holland bankruptcy proceeding closed on March 11, 2024. It further found

that the Chapter 7 trustee had not identified any claims of Holland against MRC in the bankruptcy

proceeding or that the trustee pursued any claims against MRC in that proceeding. And although

MRC filed a claim as a general unsecured creditor, it did not receive any distribution in the

bankruptcy proceeding. Moreover, the court found that MRC had expressed a desire to nonsuit its

claims against Holland, and that “MRC recommends that the trial court’s April 30, 2019 summary

judgment order be vacated as to Holland so that MRC may non-suit its claims against Holland and

seek dismissal of its claims against Holland without prejudice.” Finally, it concluded that “[a]s

1
While the appeal remained abated, attorney Jim Taylor of Beck Redden LLP filed with this Court a motion to
withdraw and designate new lead appellate counsel, attorney Jonathan R. Mureen of the firm of Squire, Patton,
Boggs, LLP, Dallas, Texas, who represented MRC at the hearing held on October 31, 2024.

3
long as Holland is not represented by counsel, it cannot pursue its claims, if any, against MRC in

Texas courts.”

Accordingly, in accordance with the trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law,

and because Holland has failed to respond to this Court’s August 7, 2024 order, we dismiss

Holland’s appeal for want of prosecution. 2 Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c). For similar reasons, we

dismiss MRC’s cross-appeal for want of prosecution, in light of MRC’s representation to the trial

court that it sought to nonsuit its claims against Holland; its failure to object to the trial court’s

findings and conclusions of law in the trial court or in this Court; and its failure to provide any

other evidence or to show that any claims against Holland remain pending for purposes of this

appeal. Moreover, MRC has not filed a request to reinstate the appeal, nor has it filed any pleadings

with the Court since its August 27, 2024 letter requesting a hearing in the trial court.

We therefore dismiss both the appeal and the cross-appeal with prejudice 3 al

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

December 9, 2025

Before Palafox, J., Soto, J., and Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret.)
Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret.), (sitting by assignment)

2
We note that all notices and orders from this Court were sent to Holland’s last known address. Each time the mailing
was returned, marked “return to sender . . . unable to forward.” Further, as the trial court noted in its findings of fact,
Holland is currently shown in public records as an inactive corporation.
3
We dispose of the other issues raised by MRC and the other parties in the appeal in Cause Number 08-19-00124-CV,
in an opinion we issue this same day.

4