T he te m pora ry inj unct ion w as a ls o e nte re d a g ai nst a thi rd pa rty de f enda nt, Me squi te Be an Proper tie s, Inc., but Mes quite 1 did not a ppea l. Opinion filed Sep tember 2 4, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 09 -0 00 78 -CV

____ ____ __ AD OBE OIL FIEL D S ERV ICES , L TD. ; A DOB E IRO NWOR KS, LTD .; ADOBE DRI LLI NG SERVI CES, LTD.; AND ADOBE TRUCKI NG, INC., Ap pellants
V.
PN C B AN K, NA TIONA L A SSOC IATION , A ppellee

On App eal from the 70th Distric t Court

Ector C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. A- 126,942

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Th is i s an ac c e le rate d ap pe a l fr om an or de r fo r te mpo ra ry inj un c tio n a g a ins t A do be Oi lf ie ld Service s, L td. and Adobe I ronworks, L td. (the re strained pa rties). PNC Bank, National Association,

1 has filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appe al a s m o o t . The motion is well taken, and the appea l is dism issed. Ap pe llate c ourt s are pr oh ibi te d fr om de c idi ng moo t c on tr ov e rs ie s. A c a se be c ome s mo ot i f
at any stag e there cea ses to be an a ctual contr oversy betwee n the par

ties. Nat ’l Col le

gia te At hle tic2

Ass’n v. Jone

s , 1 S.W. 3d

83 , 8 6 ( Te x. 19 99 ); Pa rr v . S toc k we ll , 322 S.W .2d 615, 616 (Tex. 1959). When a tempora

ry injunction becomes inoper ative d u e t o a ch ang e in status of the pa rties or the p a s s a g e o f ti me , th e is s u e o f it s v a li d it y is a lso moot. Jones , 1 S.W .3d at 86. An appe llate cour t decision about the va lidity of a temporar

y injunction under such c ircumstance s would constitute an impermissible advisory

opinion. Id. I n its order, the tria l c ourt enjoined the restra ined parties and their a g ents and a ffiliates “ from taking any action to inter fer e with or preve nt PNC or its a g ents

. . . from ente ring the Premises and removing the Collateral.” The orde r of tem p o ra ry i n junction was not superse ded. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 29. All of the parties to this appea l a g ree that PNC a nd its a g ents have now remove d all of the c o ll a te r a l f

r o m th e s a id p r e mi s e s a n d h a v e , in f a c t, a lr e a d y s o ld th e c o ll a te r a l. The tempora ry injunction, therefor e, is no long er ope rative. Appellants re quest tha

t w e a d dress the issue be cause the “c ollatera l conseque nces” exception to the mootness doctrine applies and because our determination would aff ect the proce eding s below, including the ir claims for w rong ful injunction and rec overy of the tempora

ry injunction bond. Th e c oll a te ra l c on se qu e nc e s e xce pt io n to the m oo tne ss d oc tr ine may on ly be inv ok e d in

narrow c ir c ums tanc e s w he n c on c re te dis a dv a nta g e s and dis a bil iti e s w ill pe rs ist

a nd c on tin ue to stigmatize afte r di smissal of t he ca se as moot. Ma rsh all v . H ou sin g A uth . o

f th e City of S an An ton io , 198 S.W .3d 782, 788-89 (Te x . 2006). The c ollatera l conseque nce pr offe red b y appellants is the depriva tion of possession of the prope rty

upon which they

claimed a

possessory

lien. We hold that the c oll a te ra l c on se qu e nc e s e xce pti on do e s no t a pp ly un de r the se c ir c ums tanc e s and that a pp e lla nts have not shown tha t a concre te di sadvanta g e will persist. See id. at 789. Fur thermore , we c onclude that any op ini on re g a rd ing the va lid ity of

the no w i no pe rativ e te mpo ra ry inj un c tio n w ou ld m e re ly be advisory . We decline to issue an imper missibl e advisory

opinion. PNC ’s mot ion

to d ism iss is g ra

nte d, a nd the a pp e a l is dis mis se d a s mo ot.

J I M R. W RI GHT CH I EF JUSTI CE September 24, 2009 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , a n d

S t r a n g e , J.