DISMISSED and Opinion Filed November 2, 2020 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-01551-CV WARREN CHEN AND DYNACOL OR, INC., Appellants V. RAZBERI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THOMAS J. GALVIN, LIVEOAK

VENTURES PARTNERS 1A, L.P., K ENNETH L. AND VIRGINIA T. BOYDA, AS TRUSTEES O F THE BOYDA FAMILY, ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-16568 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Schenck, and Browning Opinion by Justice Browning In this appeal, appellants Warren Chen and DynaColor, Inc. chal lenge an interlocutory order denying their special appearance. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Background The underlying lawsuit involved, among other things, claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the purchase of certain stoc k. Appellants filed a special appearance, which the trial court denied. Appellants f iled an accelerated–2– notice of appeal challenging the special appearance. Despite a ppellants’ attempts to stay the underlying proceedings , the proceedings continued. Appellees subsequently filed motions for summary judgment, whic h the trial court granted. The trial cour t signed a final judgment in appe llees’ favor on June 30, 2020. The final judgment stated, “The Court previously dis posed of certain issues and claims in the above-re ferenced February 19, 2020 Ord er, the June 18, 2020 Order, and two nonsuit orders signed on April 23, 2020. T hese orders and all other orders of the Court in thi s case are incorporated herein. ” Based on the final judgment, appellees filed a motion to dismis s arguing the interlocutory appeal is now moot. They rely on City of Lancaster v. White Rock Commercial, LLC , No. 05-16-00842-CV, 2017 WL 2875520, at *1 (Tex. App.— Dallas July 6, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) and Henry v. Flintrock Feeders, Ltd ., No. 07-04-0224-CV, 2005 WL 1320121, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jun e 1, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). A ppellants oppose the m otion to dismiss.
Discussion “Appeals of some interlocutory orders become moot because the o rders have been rendered moot by subsequent orders.” Hernandez v. Ebrom , 289 S.W.3d 316, 319 (Tex. 2009). We applied this reasoning in City of Lancaster . 2017 WL 2875520, at *1. In that case, the trial court de nied the city’s plea to the jur isdiction based on governmental immunity, and the city perfected an interlocutory appeal. Id . While–3– the interlocutory appeal was pending, the underlying case went to trial and final judgment. Id . We asked for supplemental briefing on whether the appeal was mooted by the final judgment, a nd both parties argued the appea l was not moot. Id

. We concluded otherwise. Relying in part on Hernandez , we reasoned the interlocutory appeal was moot because the appealed interlocutor y order merged into the final judgment and could be challenged in an ensuing appeal

. Id . We further noted that although the issues related to the denial of the ple a to the jurisdiction may not be moot, the purpose of the interlocutory appeal had been m ooted by the final judgment. Id . (citing Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Alexander , No. 03-04-00439-CV, 2005 WL 8147253 (Tex. App.—Austin A pr. 14, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.)). Thus, although the city could not challenge the plea to the jurisdict ion through its interlocutory appeal, it could raise the issue in its appeal fr om the final judgment.
Id

. In Henry , the Amarillo court of appeals considered whether a final summ ary judgment rendered moot the inter locutory appeal challenging the denial of a special appearance. 2005 WL 1320121, at *1. The court held that the f inal judgment did in fact moot the interlocutory appeal. Id . at *2 (citing Richards v. Mena , 820 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Tex. 1991) (final judgment moots an appeal of tempora ry injunction)). Appellants have failed to provide any persuasive arguments chal lenging these authorities. Rather, similar to t hese cases, appellants filed an interlocutory appeal, and the trial court entered a fi nal judgment prior to considera tion of the appeal. The–4– special appearance order merged into the final judgment mooting this interlocutory appeal. To the extent appellants argue that Texas Rule of Civil Procedu re 120a(4) precludes waiver of a special app earance, their argument is mis placed. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 120a(4). The issue is not one of waiver because appellants could have challenged the special appearance post-judgment by filing a sep arate notice of appeal. They chose not to. Accordingly, we grant appellees’ m otion to dismiss this interlocutory appeal as moot. Appellees also request that the Court expedite issuance of the mandate. However, appellate rule 18.1(c) allows the Clerk to issue the m andate earlier than the designated deadlines “if t he parties so agree, or for good cause on the motion of a party.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 18.1(c). Nothing in the motion indicates appellants have agreed to expedite the mandate . Moreover, appellees have not e stablished good cause for expediting issuance of the mandate. At this time, we deny appellees’ request to expedite the mandate. For the reasons stated above, we dismiss this appeal as moot. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

191551F.P05 /John G. Browning/ JOHN G. BROWNING JUSTICE–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
WARREN CHEN AND DYNACOLOR, INC., Appellants
No. 05-19-01551-CV V. RAZBERI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THOMAS J. GAL VIN, LIVEOAK VENTURES PARTNERS 1A, L.P., KENNETH L. AND VIRGINIA T. BOYDA, AS TRUSTEES OF THE BOYDA FAMILY, ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-16568. Opinion delivered by Justice Browning. Justices Whitehill and Schenck participating.

In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellees RAZBERI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THOMAS J. GALVIN, LI VEOAK VENTURES P ARTNERS 1A, L.P., KENNETH L. AND VIRGIN IA T. BOYDA, AS TRU STEES OF THE BOYDA FAMILY, ET AL. recover their cost s of this appeal from appellan ts WARREN CHEN AND DYNACOLOR, INC.
Judgment entered November 2, 2020.