Opinion
01-24-00121-CV
03-26-2024
Kittle Property Group, Inc. v. The City of Texas City, the City Commission of Texas City, the Texas City Engineering and Planning Department, and the Planning Board of Texas City
405th District Court of Galveston County Trial court case number: 23-CV-1616
ORDER
Amparo Monique Guerra, Judge
On February 14, 2024, appellant, Kittle Property Group, Inc. filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's January 25, 2024 order granting the plea to the jurisdiction of appellees The City of Texas City, The City Commission of Texas City, the Texas City Engineering and Planning Department, and the Planning Board of Texas City. On March 15, 2024, BFRE LR Property, L.P., a non-party to the underlying lawsuit and this appeal, filed a "Motion to Intervene or Substitute as Party." In its motion, BFRE seeks leave from the Court to either "intervene as a party appellant in its own right," or to "substitute as the real party in interest for [a]ppellant."
Substitution of parties to an appeal, who are not public officers, is governed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.1. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 7.1. Specifically, BFRE notes that rule 7.1(b) states that "[i]f substitution of a party in the appellate court is necessary for a reason other than death, the appellate court may order substitution on any party's motion at any time." See Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(b) (emphasis added). BFRE contends that it has a contractual relationship with appellant which give it an interest in the outcome of the underlying lawsuit, and this appeal. To this end, BFRE states that appellant was "representing to a significant degree the interests of BFRE" in the underlying lawsuit.
BFRE then makes several allegations regarding the positions of appellees in the underlying lawsuit. BFRE therefore states that it wishes to "participate" in the appeal "to protect its future interests," and requests that the Court "enter an order permitting BFRE to intervene in this appeal to represent its own interests," and to "continue this appeal in its own interest and in the stead of [appellant] if [appellant] decides to abandon the contract with BFRE."
BFRE's motion includes a certificate of conference stating that counsel for appellant is unopposed to the motion. However, counsel for appellees opposes the relief requested in the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2).
BFRE's motion is denied.
It is so ORDERED.