### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 19 - 00847 - CV
Guillette & Companies, LLC, Appellant

v. Patrick Arnzen, Appellee

FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D - 1 - GN - 18 - 001242, THE HONORABLE MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE, JUDGE PR E SIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Guillette & Companies, LLC a ppeals from the trial court ’ s final judgment rendered after a b ench trial on Patrick Arnzen ’ s mandamus petition . Arnzen filed hi s pet ition against Guille tte and C2P Hold ings, LL C

— a Delaware company f or which Guillette is the managing membe r and in which Arnzen ha s a member ship i nterest

— s eeking t o comp el examination of C 2P ’ s corporate books and records

. The trial court ’ s judgment ordered that a writ of mandamus

“ shall issu e fo r th w ith directing C2P . . . and Guillette . . . to produce withi n seven (7) da ys of service of process . . . any and all records , and/ or communications within their possession or constructive possession relating to ” enumerated categories of doc uments perta ini n g to C2P ’ s b usiness. The judgment also ordered that all costs incurred in th e proceeding , plus interest, be taxed against C 2 P and Guillette jointly and severally and that Arnzen recover against C2 P and Guillet te, jointly and severally, $5, 175 .77 in at tor n ey ’ s fees. Guillette filed a notice of appeal but C2P did no t
.2 Arnzen has filed a motion to dismiss Guillette ’ s appeal , arguing that a “ Partial Release of Judgment ” he filed in the district court on October 9, 2020 , render s the appeal m o ot. See R ap p v. Mandel l & W

right, P.C. , 123 S.W.3d 431, 435

– 36 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (explainin g that judgment creditor ’ s uncon ditional release of judgment operates as total relinquishment of all of judgment creditor ’ s rights in judgment)

. A supplemental record has been filed with this Cou rt containing the release of judgment . T he relevant provision of the r elease reads, “ [Arnzen] hereby releases the Judgment rendered in favor of [Arn zen ] on August 26, 2019 in the abo ve - numbe red cause as to Judgment Debtor GUIL LETTE & COMPANIES, LLC. ” Guille tte has filed a response to Arnzen ’ s motion to dismiss in which it argues that the “ collateral c onsequences ” and “ capable of repetition yet evadi ng r eview ” exceptions to the mootness doctr ine apply. See Marshall v. Hous ing Au th. o f San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006) (explaining collateral

- consequences exception) ; Wi lliams v. Lara , 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001) (explain ing capable

- of

- re petit ion

- yet

- ev ading

- review exception)

. We conclude th at G uillette ’ s appeal is moot because of Arnzen ’ s r elease of the judgment as to Guillette and , therefore, that the judgment against G uillette should be vacated

. See D a vi s v. Fayette C

n ty. Appr aisal Dist. , No. 03

- 12

- 00786

- CV , 201 4 WL 5802070, at *2 (Tex. A pp.
— A ustin Nov. 4, 2014, pet. denied ) (mem. op.) (holding that cr editor ’ s unconditional release of delinquent

- taxes judgment operated as total relinquishment of its rights in that portion of judgment and that appellate issue related to that portion of judg men t was moot and vacatin g that portion of trial court ’ s j udgment (citing Rapp , 123 S.W.3d at 4 35

– 36 ) )

. Furth ermore, we conclude th at neither of the mootness exceptions Guillette asserts appl ies here

. Firs t, t he act ion Arnzen challenged

— C2P ’ s refusal to allo w him to examine its books and records

— was not of such short duration that it could not have been litigated fully before the action c eased or expired.3

See Williams , 52 S.W.3d at 184 (noti ng that capable

- of

- repetition

- yet

- e vadin g - review exception appli es o n l y in “ rare circums tances ” when challenged ac t is of such short duration that appellant cannot obtain review before issue becomes moot and there is reasona ble expectation that same action will occur again if iss ue is not con sidered by co urt ) . A lso, w e ar e not persuaded that Guille tte will suffer any con crete adverse consequence due t o our dismissal of its appeal and

vac ati on of the judgment against it

. See Marshall , 198 S.W.3d at 785 ( noting that collateral

consequences exception applies only in “ narrow c i rcumstances ” when adverse con sequences susta ined by appellant will not be cured by vacating judgment ).

Accordingly, we grant Arnzen ’ s motion to dismiss this appeal and , without reference to the merits of the issues raised by Guillette in its appea l , v ac a te the trial court ’ s jud gment as to Guillette and dism iss the case as moot
. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(e) ; W eeter v. NAPA Ventures Woodbridge, LLC , No. 02

- 17

- 00345

- CV , 2018 WL 3968503, at * 2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Aug. 16 , 2018, no pet. ) (mem. op. )

.

_________________ _________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith Vacated and Di smiss ed as Moot Filed: April 1, 2021