Opinion
NUMBER 13-17-00143-CV
05-17-2017
CHRISTOPHER G. PEREZ AND BLUE MARIACHI PRODUCTIONS, LLC, Appellants, v. ABRAHAM QUINTANILLA, JR., Appellee.
On appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Justices Contreras, Benavides and Longoria
Order Per Curiam
Appellee Abraham Quintanilla, Jr., ("Quintanilla"), filed suit against appellants Christopher G. Perez and Blue Mariachi Productions, LLC, (the "Perez Defendants"), and Endemol Latino N.A., Inc., d/b/a Endemol Shine Latino ("Endemol"), a California-based production company. Quintanilla asserted causes of action for a declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and tortious interference with contractual relations.
The Perez Defendants answered and filed a motion under the Texas Anti-SLAPP Act to dismiss Quintanilla's claims. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.003(a) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). A little more than a month later, Endemol filed a special appearance with a request for a hearing and, subject to its special appearance, a separate motion to dismiss under section 27.003. Several days later, Endemol filed an answer subject to its special appearance. The trial court heard and denied the Perez Defendants' motion to dismiss, and the Perez Defendants took this interlocutory appeal. See id. § 51.014(a)(12) (authorizing an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss under section 27.003). After the Perez Defendants perfected this appeal, Endemol asked the trial court to rule on its special appearance. The court refused, citing the statutory automatic stay imposed by the Perez Defendants' appeal. See id. § 51.014(b) (providing that an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a section 27.003 motion to dismiss stays commencement of trial and "all other proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of that appeal").
Endemol has now filed in this Court an emergency motion to intervene and an emergency motion to "Lift Stay For Purpose of Obtaining Ruling on Special Appearance and, Subject Thereto, Motion to Dismiss." Endemol asks this Court to lift the automatic stay imposed by section 51.014(b) for the purpose of allowing the trial court to hear Endemol's special appearance and, if necessary, its motion to dismiss under section 27.003. The attached certificates of conference reflect that Quintanilla opposes both motions but the Perez Defendants are unopposed.
Quintanilla filed a response to Endemol's motion to intervene alleging that granting the motion would be improper because Endemol has no standing, as well as a motion seeking an expedited ruling for the purpose of ascertaining if it would be necessary for Quintanilla to respond to Endemol's motion to lift the stay. The Perez Defendants filed a reply in support of their emergency motion to intervene.
The Court, after considering the motions, attachments, Quintanilla's response, the Perez Defendants' reply, and the current stage and procedural posture of the present appeal, concludes that Endemol's motions should be denied because Endemol lacks standing to intervene in this interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, Endemol's motions to intervene and emergency motion to lift the stay are DENIED. Quintanilla's motion for an expedited ruling is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 17th day of May, 2017.