Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Labatt Food Service v. Ezebb — Fourth Court grants agreed reversal and remands for settlement judgment

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Labatt Food Service LLC and Jonathan Caudillo v. Lucille Ezebb
Court
Texas Fourth Court of Appeals
Judge
Adrian A. Spears II (elected 2024); H. Todd McCray (elected 2024); Velia J. Meza (elected 2024)
Date Decided
October 7, 2026
Docket No.
04-25-00769-CV
Topics
Settlement, Agreed Reversal, Remand
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Labatt Food Service LLC and Jonathan Caudillo appealed a final judgment entered by the 150th Judicial District Court of Bexar County in litigation involving Lucille Ezebb. The appellate opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or the terms of the trial court’s judgment.

On June 23, 2026, the parties jointly moved to abate the appeal while they finalized a settlement agreement. The Fourth Court of Appeals granted that request on June 25 and suspended appellate deadlines. After finalizing the settlement, the parties jointly asked the court to reverse the final judgment and remand the case for rendition of judgment consistent with their agreement.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted the parties’ joint motion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2). It reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case so the trial court could render judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Under Rule 42.1(d), the court taxed appellate costs against the party that incurred them. The memorandum opinion was issued per curiam.

Key Takeaways

  • Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) permits an appellate court to dispose of an appeal in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
  • The court reversed and remanded solely to allow rendition of a judgment implementing the parties’ settlement.
  • Each party remains responsible for the appellate costs that party incurred.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates how parties may use an agreed appellate disposition to implement a settlement reached while an appeal is pending. The opinion addresses only that procedural resolution and does not decide or discuss the merits of the underlying dispute.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top