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 DYNACOLOR, INC., Appellants 

V. 

RAZBERI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THOMAS J. GALVIN, 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 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Whitehill, Schenck, and Browning 

Opinion by Justice Browning 

In this appeal, appellants Warren Chen and DynaColor, Inc. challenge 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 stock. Appellants filed a 

special appearance, which the trial court denied. Appellants filed an accelerated 
 –2– 

notice of appeal challenging the special appearance. Despite appellants’ attempts to 

stay the underlying proceedings, the proceedings continued. 

Appellees subsequently filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial 

court granted. The trial court signed a final judgment in appellees’ favor on June 

30, 2020. The final judgment stated, “The Court previously disposed of certain 

issues and claims in the above-referenced February 19, 2020 Order, the June 18, 

2020 Order, and two nonsuit orders signed on April 23, 2020. These orders and all 

other orders of the Court in this case are incorporated herein.” 

Based on the final judgment, appellees filed a motion to dismiss 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 June 1, 2005, 

no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellants oppose the motion to dismiss. 

Discussion 

“Appeals of some interlocutory orders become moot because the orders 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 denied the city’s plea to the jurisdiction 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, and both parties argued the appeal was not moot. Id. 

We concluded otherwise. Relying in part on Hernandez, we reasoned the 

interlocutory appeal was moot because the appealed interlocutory 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 plea to the jurisdiction may 

not be moot, the purpose of the interlocutory appeal had been mooted 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 Apr. 14, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.)). Thus, 

although the city could not challenge the plea to the jurisdiction through its 

interlocutory appeal, it could raise the issue in its appeal from the final judgment. 

Id. 

In Henry, the Amarillo court of appeals considered whether a final summary 

judgment rendered moot the interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of a special 

appearance. 2005 WL 1320121, at *1. The court held that the final 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 temporary injunction)). 

Appellants have failed to provide any persuasive arguments challenging these 

authorities. Rather, similar to these cases, appellants filed an interlocutory appeal, 

and the trial court entered a final judgment prior to consideration 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 Procedure 120a(4) 

precludes waiver of a special appearance, their argument is misplaced. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 120a(4). The issue is not one of waiver because appellants could have 

challenged the special appearance post-judgment by filing a separate notice of 

appeal. They chose not to. Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion 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 mandate earlier than 

the designated deadlines “if the parties so agree, or for good cause on the motion of 

a party.” TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c). Nothing in the motion indicates appellants have 

agreed to expedite the mandate. Moreover, appellees have not established 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. TEX. R. APP. 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. GALVIN, 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 appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellees RAZBERI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

THOMAS J. GALVIN, LIVEOAK VENTURES PARTNERS 1A, L.P., 

KENNETH L. AND VIRGINIA T. BOYDA, AS TRUSTEES OF THE BOYDA 

FAMILY, ET AL. recover their costs of this appeal from appellants WARREN 

CHEN AND DYNACOLOR, INC. 

Judgment entered November 2, 2020.