### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-17-00828- CV

Neurodiagnostic Consul tants, LLC d/ b/a S ynaptic Resource s of Au stin, LL C, a

Texas Limit ed Liab ility Com pany, Ap pellant

v. Melody Nallia, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 353 RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 7-0 0469 6, H ONO RAB LE O RLINDA NARANJO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Neur odiag nostic Consultants, L L C d/b/a Sy naptic Resource s of Austin, L L C (Sy naptic) filed suit ag ainst Melody Nallia, a former employ ee , t o enfor ce non-compe te and non-solicitation clause s in Nallia’s employ ment contra ct. The trial court ref ormed the non-compe te clau s e to reduc e it s duration and g eog raphic scope and g rante d a temporary injunction restra ining
Na llia from violating either clause

. Sy naptic then perf

ecte d this interlocutory appea l o f t h e t ri al court’s refor

mation of t he non-co m p ete clause

. Nallia has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the trial cour t has rende red a

final judg ment. “A case become s moot if, s i n ce the time of filing, there has cea sed to exis t a justiciable controve rsy betwee n the parties—that is, if the issues presente d are no longe r ‘live,’ or i f t h e parties lack a leg ally cog nizable interest in the outcome.” Hec kman v. W illiamson Cty. , 369 S.W .3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). Texas courts lack jurisdiction o v er moot case s beca use anydecision would const i t u t e an improper advisory opinion. Matthews v. Kountze Indep. Sch. Dist. ,

484 S.W .3d 416, 418 (Tex. 2 0 1 6 ). “I f, while on the appea l of the g ranting or deny ing of the temporar y injunct i o n, the trial court rende rs final judgme nt, the case on appea l become s moot.” Isuani v. Manske -S

heffield Radiology Grp. , 802 S.W .2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991). This rule is “nec essar y to preve nt premature revie w of the me rits of the ca se.” Id. Nallia arg ues that the trial court has mooted this appea l by rende ring a final judgme nt dismiss ing all of Sy

naptic’s claims ag ainst her under the Texas Citi zens’ Participation Act (TCPA). 1
See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.001-.011. Sy naptic responds that the case is not moot be cause a dismiss al under the TCPA is “not a dismiss al on the full merits afte r [a] trial.” As

a result, Sy

naptic rea sons, a decisi o n fr o m this Court overturning or modify ing the temporar y injun ct i o n “will have a direc t eff ect on Sy naptic’s appea l of the final judgme nt.” A temporar y i n j u n ct i on ty

pically “oper ates until dissolved by an interlocutory order or until the final hear ing,” and Sy naptic does not offe r any contra ry authority

. Qw es t Co mm c’ns Corp. v. AT& T Corp. , 24 S.W .3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000) (quoting Brines v. McI lhaney , 596 S.W .2d 519, 523 (Tex. 1980)). Moreove r, the injunction here expressly provides that it expires upon entry of a final judgme nt. Even though the TCPA require d the trial court to decide Nallia’s motion to dismiss without a full trial, there is no dispute that the trial court’s order qualifies as a final judgme nt beca use it fully disposed of all Sy naptic’s claims. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W .3d 191, 192-93 (Tex. 2001) (holding t h at a judgme nt issued without a conventional trial is final for purposes of appea l if it

This Court dockete d Sy naptic’s appea l of the trial court’s j u d gment under cause 1 No. 03-18-00609- CV. 2“ac tually disposes of all claims and parties then befor e the court” ). T h e t empora ry injunction 2 expired by its own terms, and any challeng es to its validity are now moot. See Isuani , 802 S.W .2d 3

at 236; see also National

Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jone s , 1 S.W .3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999) (“When a tempora ry injunction becomes inoper ative due to a chang e in status of t he parties or t he passa g e of time, the issue of its validity is also moot.”). Having co n cl u d ed that Sy naptic’s appea l is moot, we g rant Nallia’s motion and dismiss the appe al for w ant of jurisdiction.

_________________________________________ Cindy Olson Bour land, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Bour land, and Toth Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Nove mber 27, 2018

The trial court sever ed S y n ap t i c’ s claims ag ainst Nallia from its claims ag ainst other 2 defe ndants befor e g ranting Nallia’s motion to dismi ss. Acc ording ly , we ex press no opinion on whethe r ref ormation of a non-compe te clause at 3 the pre liminary -injunction stag e is permissible. 3