Preview
Electronically Filed
11/7/2023 5:24 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Denise Garcia
CAUSE NO. C-3361-23-C
MIRASOL CHAVEZ § AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT
JUAN CHAVEZ, §
§
V. § 139TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
ASOCIASION DEL CEMETERIO §
LA PIEDAD D/B/A “CEMENTERIO §
LA PIEDAD” AND CEBALLO FUNERAL §
HOME, INC. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS’ PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
COMES NOW, ASOCIASION DEL CEMENTERIO LA PIEDAD D/B/A
“CEMENTERIO LA PIEDAD” AND CEBALLO FUNERAL HOME, INC. Defendants in the
above-numbered and entitled cause, and file this Plea to Jurisdiction alleging that that Plaintiffs
have no standing to bring this lawsuit and no justiciable controversy exists between the parties,
and for cause shows as follows:
I.
FACTS
1. Plaintiffs’ Original Petition alleges the following facts and causes of action:
(1) The Plaintiffs are the adult children of Juan Manuel Chavez.
(2) Juan Manuel Chavez was buried at La Piedad Cemetery on or about July 20, 1999
(3) On September 20, 2021, the Deceased’s plot was opened to bury Norma Lisa
Morales a niece of the Deceased above his casket.
(4) The Plaintiffs attended their cousin Norma Lisa Morales’s burial.
(5) The Plaintiffs were shocked when their father’s plot was opened to bury their
cousin.
(6) Plaintiff Mirasol Chavez asked a manager of La Piedad why the plot was opened
1
Electronically Filed
11/7/2023 5:24 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Denise Garcia
without the family’s consent and the manager allegedly stated that their cousin’s
mother had informed the cemetery that there was no family to request consent from.
(7) Plaintiffs’ suit alleges causes of action for negligence, gross negligence, negligence
per se and violations of the Texas Occupations Code.
(8) Plaintiffs allege the following constitutes negligence:
A. Failure to provide professional services;
B. Failure to address the decisions regarding the opening of Decedent’s plot;
C. Failure to obtain consent from the family of the Decedent to bury Norma
Alicia Morales;
D. Failure to desecrate the final resting place of Decedent;
(9) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ acts/omissions constitute actual gross negligence
in that they proceeded with a conscious disregard without communicating with
Plaintiffs.
(10) Plaintiffs allege the Defendants’ acts/omissions were unethical and unprofessional
and violate Sections 651.459 (a)(2) and 651.459(a)(3) of the Texas Occupations
Code, and such acts/omission thus constitute negligence per se.
(11) Plaintiffs allege the Defendant’s acts/omissions caused them personal injuries and
mental anguish.
(12) Plaintiffs are requesting exemplary and punitive damages.
II.
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
2. The purpose of a plea to the jurisdiction is to dismiss a cause of action without regard to
whether the claim has merit. Mission Consol. I.S.D. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012).
In deciding a plea to the jurisdiction, a Court may not weigh the claim’s merits but must consider
2
Electronically Filed
11/7/2023 5:24 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Denise Garcia
the plaintiff’s pleadings and the evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry. Bland ISD v. Blue,
34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000).
3. If the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the
jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend. See Peek v.
Equipment Serv. Co. of San Antonio, 799 S.W.2d 802, 804-805 (Tex. 1989).
4. Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction. The question of standing addresses
whether a litigant is the proper party to bring the lawsuit. Generally, to establish standing, a party
must show: (1) a real, justiciable controversy exists between the parties, and (2) the controversy
will actually be determined by the relief sought. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 989 S.W.2d
441, 445 (Tex. App. Dallas 1999).
5. Based on the specific allegations of the Plaintiff, there was no contractual relationship
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. Rather, Plaintiffs complain that they were shocked and
suffered mental anguish when their father’s grave was opened to bury their cousin, and that
Defendants were somehow negligent in not asking their permission to open the crypt to bury their
cousin. However, Plaintiffs do not plead any law, rule or contract that required Defendants to ask
their permission to conduct the burial.
6. Based on the Plaintiffs’ own pleadings there is no real, justiciable controversy between
the parties. As stated above, Plaintiffs are not in privity of contract to have standing to sue. Also,
there is no allegation that the father’s remains were moved or disturbed in any manner.
Furthermore, the Plaintiffs allegations that Defendant was negligent are not supported by any duty
that could have been breached. Texas law does not recognize a cause of action or the imposition
of a duty on a defendant merely because one is a family member. Based on Plaintiff’s pleadings
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief to the Plaintiff.
3
Electronically Filed
11/7/2023 5:24 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Denise Garcia
Respectfully submitted,
Law Office of Roel Gutierrez, PLLC
4415 N McColl Rd,
McAllen, TX 78504
Phone: 956-278-3529
Fax: 956-278-3530
Email: roelgutierrezlaw@gmail.com
/s/ Roel Gutierrez
ROEL GUTIERREZ
State Bar No. 24069842
Law Office of Jorge Salinas, PLLC
4415 N McColl Rd,
McAllen, TX 78504
Phone: 956-278-3529
Fax: 956-278-3530
Email: attorney@jorgesalinaslaw.com
/s/ Jorge Salinas
JORGE SALINAS
State Bar No. 24090368
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, LA
PIEDAD
AND
/s/ Brandon C. Holubar
Brandon C. Holubar
State Bar No. 24041124
Royston, Rayzon, Vickery & Williams,
L.L.P.
55 Cove Circle
Brownsville, Texas 78521
brandon.holubar@roystonlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,
CEBALLO FUNERAL HOME, INC.
4
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Roel Gutierrez
Bar No. 24069842
gutierrezroel@hotmail.com
Envelope ID: 81407300
Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee)
Filing Description: Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction
Status as of 11/8/2023 8:03 AM CST
Associated Case Party: Ceballos Funeral Home, INC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Eddie Sikes eddie.sikes@roystonlaw.com 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT
Sonia Mata sonia.mata@roystonlaw.com 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT
Brandon Holubar brandon.holubar@royostonlaw.com 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
RAFAEL DE LAGARZA RDLGLAW@GMAIL.COM 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT
JORGE SALINAS attorney@jorgesalinaslaw.com 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT
ROEL GUTIERREZ roelgutierrezlaw@gmail.com 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT
BRANDON HOLUBAR BRANDON.HOLUBAR@ROYSTONLAW.COM 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT
Preview
Electronically Filed 11/7/2023 5:24 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Denise Garcia CAUSE NO. C-3361-23-C MIRASOL CHAVEZ § AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT JUAN CHAVEZ, § § V. § 139TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § ASOCIASION DEL CEMETERIO § LA PIEDAD D/B/A “CEMENTERIO § LA PIEDAD” AND CEBALLO FUNERAL § HOME, INC. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS’ PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION COMES NOW, ASOCIASION DEL CEMENTERIO LA PIEDAD D/B/A “CEMENTERIO LA PIEDAD” AND CEBALLO FUNERAL HOME, INC. Defendants in the above-numbered and entitled cause, and file this Plea to Jurisdiction alleging that that Plaintiffs have no standing to bring this lawsuit and no justiciable controversy exists between the parties, and for cause shows as follows: I. FACTS 1. Plaintiffs’ Original Petition alleges the following facts and causes of action: (1) The Plaintiffs are the adult children of Juan Manuel Chavez. (2) Juan Manuel Chavez was buried at La Piedad Cemetery on or about July 20, 1999 (3) On September 20, 2021, the Deceased’s plot was opened to bury Norma Lisa Morales a niece of the Deceased above his casket. (4) The Plaintiffs attended their cousin Norma Lisa Morales’s burial. (5) The Plaintiffs were shocked when their father’s plot was opened to bury their cousin. (6) Plaintiff Mirasol Chavez asked a manager of La Piedad why the plot was opened 1 Electronically Filed 11/7/2023 5:24 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Denise Garcia without the family’s consent and the manager allegedly stated that their cousin’s mother had informed the cemetery that there was no family to request consent from. (7) Plaintiffs’ suit alleges causes of action for negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se and violations of the Texas Occupations Code. (8) Plaintiffs allege the following constitutes negligence: A. Failure to provide professional services; B. Failure to address the decisions regarding the opening of Decedent’s plot; C. Failure to obtain consent from the family of the Decedent to bury Norma Alicia Morales; D. Failure to desecrate the final resting place of Decedent; (9) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ acts/omissions constitute actual gross negligence in that they proceeded with a conscious disregard without communicating with Plaintiffs. (10) Plaintiffs allege the Defendants’ acts/omissions were unethical and unprofessional and violate Sections 651.459 (a)(2) and 651.459(a)(3) of the Texas Occupations Code, and such acts/omission thus constitute negligence per se. (11) Plaintiffs allege the Defendant’s acts/omissions caused them personal injuries and mental anguish. (12) Plaintiffs are requesting exemplary and punitive damages. II. PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION 2. The purpose of a plea to the jurisdiction is to dismiss a cause of action without regard to whether the claim has merit. Mission Consol. I.S.D. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 635 (Tex. 2012). In deciding a plea to the jurisdiction, a Court may not weigh the claim’s merits but must consider 2 Electronically Filed 11/7/2023 5:24 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Denise Garcia the plaintiff’s pleadings and the evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry. Bland ISD v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). 3. If the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend. See Peek v. Equipment Serv. Co. of San Antonio, 799 S.W.2d 802, 804-805 (Tex. 1989). 4. Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction. The question of standing addresses whether a litigant is the proper party to bring the lawsuit. Generally, to establish standing, a party must show: (1) a real, justiciable controversy exists between the parties, and (2) the controversy will actually be determined by the relief sought. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 989 S.W.2d 441, 445 (Tex. App. Dallas 1999). 5. Based on the specific allegations of the Plaintiff, there was no contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. Rather, Plaintiffs complain that they were shocked and suffered mental anguish when their father’s grave was opened to bury their cousin, and that Defendants were somehow negligent in not asking their permission to open the crypt to bury their cousin. However, Plaintiffs do not plead any law, rule or contract that required Defendants to ask their permission to conduct the burial. 6. Based on the Plaintiffs’ own pleadings there is no real, justiciable controversy between the parties. As stated above, Plaintiffs are not in privity of contract to have standing to sue. Also, there is no allegation that the father’s remains were moved or disturbed in any manner. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs allegations that Defendant was negligent are not supported by any duty that could have been breached. Texas law does not recognize a cause of action or the imposition of a duty on a defendant merely because one is a family member. Based on Plaintiff’s pleadings the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief to the Plaintiff. 3 Electronically Filed 11/7/2023 5:24 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Denise Garcia Respectfully submitted, Law Office of Roel Gutierrez, PLLC 4415 N McColl Rd, McAllen, TX 78504 Phone: 956-278-3529 Fax: 956-278-3530 Email: roelgutierrezlaw@gmail.com /s/ Roel Gutierrez ROEL GUTIERREZ State Bar No. 24069842 Law Office of Jorge Salinas, PLLC 4415 N McColl Rd, McAllen, TX 78504 Phone: 956-278-3529 Fax: 956-278-3530 Email: attorney@jorgesalinaslaw.com /s/ Jorge Salinas JORGE SALINAS State Bar No. 24090368 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, LA PIEDAD AND /s/ Brandon C. Holubar Brandon C. Holubar State Bar No. 24041124 Royston, Rayzon, Vickery & Williams, L.L.P. 55 Cove Circle Brownsville, Texas 78521 brandon.holubar@roystonlaw.com ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, CEBALLO FUNERAL HOME, INC. 4 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Roel Gutierrez Bar No. 24069842 gutierrezroel@hotmail.com Envelope ID: 81407300 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction Status as of 11/8/2023 8:03 AM CST Associated Case Party: Ceballos Funeral Home, INC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Eddie Sikes eddie.sikes@roystonlaw.com 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT Sonia Mata sonia.mata@roystonlaw.com 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT Brandon Holubar brandon.holubar@royostonlaw.com 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status RAFAEL DE LAGARZA RDLGLAW@GMAIL.COM 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT JORGE SALINAS attorney@jorgesalinaslaw.com 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT ROEL GUTIERREZ roelgutierrezlaw@gmail.com 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT BRANDON HOLUBAR BRANDON.HOLUBAR@ROYSTONLAW.COM 11/7/2023 5:24:25 PM SENT