Crox Quintanilla v. Law Office of Jerry J. Trevino, P.C., 13-15-00105-CV

In April 2013 the Law Office of Jerry J. Treviño sued multiple defendants based on an alleged assignment of a Settlement and Confidentiality Agreement; Treviño alleged he acquired rights from Crox Quintanilla.
Quintanilla filed an Original Petition in Intervention (May 6, 2013) and a First Amended Original Petition in Intervention (Aug. 2, 2013) asserting claims including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, negligent misrepresentation, and theft.
On September 24, 2014 plaintiffs (Treviño and his firm) filed a Motion for Non-Suit as to their claims; the trial court signed an Order of Dismissal that dismissed plaintiffs’ claims.
The trial court later issued a sua sponte order stating the September 24 non-suit “disposed of all issues and causes of actions of all parties,” and subsequently denied Quintanilla’s motion to reconsider or for a new trial.
Quintanilla appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing his intervention claims because an intervenor’s claims survive a plaintiff’s non-suit absent the intervenor’s consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing intervenor Quintanilla’s claims after plaintiffs’ non-suit	Quintanilla: as an intervenor he became a party for all purposes; plaintiffs’ voluntary non-suit could not extinguish his independent claims; he was entitled to a merits resolution and due process.	Treviño/plaintiffs: the non-suit and resulting Order of Dismissal disposed of the case; intervenor’s pleading was not a separate pending lawsuit that survived the dismissal.	Trial court entered orders treating the non-suit as disposing of all claims and denied Quintanilla’s motions to reconsider/new trial; Quintanilla appeals asserting abuse of discretion.

Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1986) (consent decrees or settlements among some parties cannot dispose of nonconsenting intervenors’ valid claims)
Guaranty Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Oper. Co., 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. 1990) (intervention procedure; effect of intervention)
H. Tebbs, Inc. v. Silver Eagle Distributors, Inc., 797 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. App. — Austin 1990) (consent/agreed orders and the need for intervenor consent)
Serna v. Webster, 908 S.W.2d 487 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1995) (intervenors who appear are parties for all purposes)
Hensley v. Salinas, 583 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1979) (general principles regarding agreed judgments and party consent)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Williams, 603 S.W.2d 258 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980) (treating intervenors as parties whose consent may be necessary for agreed judgments)