Opinion
01-24-00121-CV
06-11-2024
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
Date motion filed: May 29, 2024
Trial court: 405th District Court of Galveston County, Trial court case number: 23-CV-1616
Panel consists of: Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Amparo M. Guerra Justice
BFRE Property LR, LLC, a non-party to this appeal and the underlying litigation, filed a motion for rehearing of the Court's May 14, 2024 opinion dismissing this appeal. The dismissal of the appeal was sought by appellant, Kittle Property Group, Inc., which filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, stating that it "no longer desire[d] to pursue its appeal."
BFRE's motion is captioned a "Motion for Rehearing by Kittle Property Group, Inc." Kittle Property Group, Inc. was the appellant in this appeal. Despite this caption, the motion was not filed by appellant, and was instead filed by BFRE. Further, there is no evidence in the Court's records that counsel for BFRE, Mark W. Stevens, had any authority to file documents on behalf of appellant. The Court's records reflect that appellant was represented by its own counsel, who filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal on behalf of appellant. We trust that counsel's caption representing that the motion for rehearing was filed "by Kittle Property Group, Inc.," was a typographical error.
We note that on March 15, 2024, BFRE filed a "Motion to Intervene or Substitute as Party" in this appeal. The Court denied BFRE's motion on March 26, 2024. Accordingly, BFRE is not a party to this appeal, and the Court's records do not reflect that BFRE was a party to the underlying litigation. In the motion for rehearing, BFRE requests that the Court reinstate the appeal and allow the appeal to "continue" with BFRE as appellant.
On May 30, 2024, appellee, the City of Texas City, filed a response in opposition to BFRE's motion for rehearing. BFRE filed a reply in support of its motion for rehearing on June 3, 2024.
It is ordered that BFRE's motion for rehearing is denied.
It is so ORDERED.