Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 3, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00134-CV IN RE METHODIST DALLAS MEDICAL CENTER, Relator On Original Proceeding from th e 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12-07504-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice Francis On May 9, 2013, this Court issued its opinion and order conditionally granting relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. In the opinion, we concluded th e trial court had abused its discretion by ordering production of an occurrence report. We ordered th e trial court to vacate its January 30, 2013 order granting plaintiff’s moti on to compel in part and denying defendant’s motion for protective order and to render an or der denying plaintiff’s motion to compel and granting defendant’s motion for protective order. We ordered the trial court to file a certified copy of its order issued in co mpliance with our May 9, 2013 order. On May 10, 2013, the trial court filed its May 10, 2013 order va cating its January 30, 2013 order. In its order, the trial court noted that the parties had settled this case and ha d filed a motion to dismiss that was granted by the trial court on April 29, 2013. Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies. See Sepulveda v. Medrano , 323 S.W.3d 620, 625 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). A justiciable controversy–2– between the parties must exist at ev ery stage of the legal proceedings. Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). Moreover, we lack jurisdiction to issu e advisory opinions. Speer v. Presbyterian Children’s Home & Serv. Agency , 847 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Tex. 1993).
T he duty of honesty and candor a lawyer owes to the appellate cour t includes fairly portraying the record on appeal. In re City of Lancaster , 228 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.). Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.11 makes clear that a lawyer has the same duty in original proceedings. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.11. Factual misrepresent ations not only violate a lawyer’s duty to the appellate court but also subject offenders to sanctions. Schlafly v. Schlafly , 33 S.W.3d 863, 873 (Tex. App.—Houston [ 14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). We remind the attorneys in this proceeding of their obligation to info rm this Court of any change in the facts of a case, in cluding settlement of all issues in controversy. Despite the April 29, 2013 settlement, this Court was not notified unt il eleven days later, after its May 9, 2013 opinion granting the relief sought ha d issued. While we have serious concerns about the parties’ failure to adequately inform the Court of the stat us of the case, we decline to take any further action at this time. Accordingly, under Texas Rule of Appella te Procedure 19.1(a), we withdraw our opinion, vacate our order, and dism iss this original proceeding. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 19.1(a).

130134F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IN RE METHODIST DALLAS MEDICAL CENTER No. 05-13-00134-CV On original proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12-07504-L. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Moseley and Fi llmore participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we WITHDRAW our May 9, 2013 opinion, VACATE our May 9, 2013 order, and DISMISS this original proceeding. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 19.1(a).
Judgment entered July 3, 2013

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE