                     NUMBER 13-11-00334-CV

                     COURT OF APPEALS

             THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

               CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

GABRIEL ALVARADO AND PIEDAD ALVARADO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR
CHILDREN, G.A.A. AND V.A.A., AND PROVOST
UMPHREY LAW FIRM, L.L.P.,                                    Appellants,

                                 v.

PUFFER-SWEIVEN LP, PUFFER-SWEIVEN GP,
INC., INTERNATIONAL FLOW SERVICES, GP INC.,
VERDE HOLDINGS, INC., INTERNATIONAL FLOW
SERVICES, LP, PUFFER-SWEIVEN SPECIALTIES,
INC., CITGO REFINING AND CHEMICALS COMPANY,
L.P. AND REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY,                                 Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 319th District Court
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
          Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
                  Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
       Appellants Gabriel Alvarado and Piedad Alvarado, individually and on behalf of

their minor children, G.A.A. and V.A.A., and Provost Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P., perfected

an appeal from a judgment entered by the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas,

in cause number 09-6072-G. Appellants have filed an unopposed motion for voluntary

dismissal of the appeal on grounds that the parties have fully resolved the controversies

between them. Appellants request that this Court dismiss the appeal.

       The Court, having abated the appeal on January 9, 2012 pending settlement, now

REINSTATES the appeal. Further, considering the documents on file and appellants'

unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, the Court is of the opinion that the motion

should be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellants' unopposed motion to

dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the

agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the

appellant.").   Having dismissed the appeal at appellants' request, no motion for

rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.



                                                                       PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
7th day of June, 2012.




                                            2
