### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00439- CV

Te xa s D e par tm e ntof P ublic Safe ty , A ppe lla nt

v. Alan W. Alexander, Bill y Davis, Joseph Rand y Dillard, Rub en Duran, Ke nney Fost er, Maria G . Gar za, G regor y Haire, Bobby H arper, Eduardo Jime nez, De nni s D. L a n d , Da n n y L ew i s , W i l l i a m D. L o rd , J a mes S . L u ca s , Ga ry P. McC ully, Rob ert

E. Ralls, an d Jerry Schwab, Ap pellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN202911 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES F . CAMP B ELL, JR., JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appel l an t , t h e T ex as De p art m en to f P u b l i c S af et y , fi l edth is interlocutory appea l from the trial cour

t’s denial of its plea to the jur isdiction. W hile this appeal wa s pending , the trial cour t rende red a

final judg ment on the merits of the c ase. Appellees filed a motion to dism iss, arguing that the entry of the fina l judgment appeal render s the i nterlocutory appea l moot. Appellant opposes the mot ion to d ism iss , a sse rt ingthat th e iss ue s r e la te d to its ple a

to t he jur isd ic tio n a

re no t mo ot. The policy

behind allowinginterlocutory appeal s from orde rs deny ing ple as to the jur isd ic tio n is to spa

re the State fr om expe nd ing re so ur c e s in trying the me ri ts o f a c a se wh e n it

is immune from suit. Ci ty o f G a lv es to n v . Gray , 9 3 S. W.3 d 5 87 , 5 92 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th Di st. ] 200 2, pe t. d e nie d) ; see City of Austin v. L

. S. Ranch , Ltd. , 9 7 0 S. W. 2 d 7 5 0 , 7 5 2

- 5 3 ( T e x.2

App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (“ The hig h cost of def endinga suit ag ainst a g overnme ntal entity , borne
u l t i m at el y

b y t h e p u b l i c, i s s t ro n g m o t i v at i o nfo r a l l o wi n g any jurisdictional issue to be resolved be fo re the me ri ts o f t

he su it a re lit ig a te d. ” ). In thi s c a se , w e be lie ve that th e int e rl oc uto ry a pp e a l is proce durally

moot and should be dismissed
. In rea chingthis decision, the opinion of the Dallas Court of Appea ls in Lin c oln Pr op e rty Co. v . Ko nd

os is in s tr

u c ti v e . 1 1 0 S. W. 3 d

7 1 2 ( T e x. App.—Dallas 2003, no pe t.). In Lin c oln Pr op e rty , the cour t was fa ced w ith an “unusual proc edura l history ” rathe r simil ar to the one befor e us now. Id
. at 713. L incoln Property filed an inter locutory appea l from an or der g rant i n g cl as s certification, but while the appe al was pe nding, the parties
arr ang ed for

and par t i ci p at ed i n a hea

ring afte r which a

final summary

judgme nt was ente red, determ i n i ng the merits of the c ase. Id . T he c ourt of a pp e a ls o bs e rv e d th a t a

c a se is m oo t w he n it
wo uld have no pr a c tic a l e ff

e c t on an e xistin g c on tr ov e rs y and no te d th a t “ [a]ny int e rl oc uto ry

c la ss
cer tificat i o n o rd ers merg e into the final judg ment.” Id . at 715. The c ourt conc luded that “a ny decision made in this appeal would not aff ect the r ights of the par

ties,” and “ decline[d] to decide the issues piece meal throug h two appea ls involvi ng the same c ase.” Id
. at 716. The court held that the f in a l ju d g me n t r e n d e r e d th e inte r lo c u to r y a p p e a l mo o t an d d is mi s s e d th e c a s e f o r w an t of jurisdiction. Id
.

I n thi s c a se , we are pr e se nte d wi th a sim ila r sit uatio n. Al tho ug h the iss ue s r e late d to the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction may not be moot, the purpose of an interlocutory appea l has been mooted by

the final judg ment. Se e id .; Gray , 9 3 S. W.3 d at 59 2. We w ill the re fo re dis mis s th is int e rl oc uto ry

a pp e a l a s mo ot.3 Ho we ve r, if

the ple a to the jur isd ic tio n wa s imp ro pe rl y de nie d, the me ri ts of the c a se should not have bee n rea ched. There fore , the i ssue of the de nial of the plea to the jurisdiction is not
moo t. Th os e iss ue s, the n, may be ra ise d by a pp e lla nt i n it s a pp e a l f ro m th e fi na l ju dg me nt a

nd , if raised, w ill be addr es s ed by this Court. Upon either par ties’ re quest, any

documents and r ecor ds filed in the i n t er locutory

appea l will be transfe rre d from this cause number to the a ppeal f rom the final judg ment, thus sparing the par ties the nee d to reque st and file duplicate copies. We dismiss the pe nd ingmot ion

to t ake jud ic ia l no tic e that w a s b e ingc arr ie d to the me ri ts.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Dismissed as Moot Filed: Apr il 14, 2005