MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT – Page 1 SP

- #7248058

- v1

- HHA_Motion_to_Dismiss_Interlocutory_Appeal_as_Moot.docx NO. 01

- 15

- 00790

- CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

__________________________________________________________________ LATTER DAY DELIVERAN CE REVIVAL CHURCH APPELLANT V. THE HOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY APPELLEE

__________________________________________________________________ MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT [filed by Appellee Houston Housing Authority]

__________________________________________________________________ Appellee Houston Housing Authority (“HHA”) respectfully moves this ho norable Court to dismiss this appeal as moot insofar as it is taken from the trial court’s order denying a temporary inj unction. 1. This appeal originated as an interlocutory (accelerated) appeal from a September 1, 2015, trial court order (Exhibit A to this motion) denying the appe llant’s application for a temporary injunction. 2. On September 11, 2015, the trial court signed an order (the “Septe mber 11 order ,” Exhibit B to this motion ) granting HHA’s plea to the jurisdiction. This order had the effect of disposing of all remaining parties and issues in the case, and therefore constituted a final judgment. ACCEPTED 01-15-00790-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/7/2015 12:05:33 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKMOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT

– Page 2 SP

- #7248058

- v1

- HHA_Motion_to_Dismiss_Interlocutory_Appeal_as_Moot.docx 3. The appellant (along w ith a co

- appellant) has appealed from the Se ptember 11 order. It appears that the clerk of this Court has treated th e appeal from the final judgment as part of this accelerated appeal. 4. Since the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status
quo pending final judgment, and since a temporary injunction expires upon final judgment, it is routinely held that the rendition of a final judgment moots an appeal from an order denying a temporary injunction. See Isuani v. Manske

- Sheffield R adiology Gr oup, P.A. , 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991) ( per curiam ) ; Lowe v. Farm Credit Bank , 2 S.W.3d 293, 299

- 300 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 1999, pet. denied) ; Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. Austin Independent School District , 973 S.W.2d 378, 384 (Tex. App.

– Austin 1998 , no pet. ) ; Bonilla v. Roberson , 918 S.W.2d 17, 20

- 21 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1996 , no pet. ) ; Roadrunner Inves tments, Inc. v. Texas Utilities Fuel Co. , 526 S.W.2d 615, 616

- 17 (Tex. Civ. App.

– Fort Worth 1975 , no writ ) ; City of Corpus Christi v. Car t wright , 281 S.W.2d 343, 343

- 44 (Tex. Civ. App.

– San Antonio 1955 , no writ ) ; Spencer v. Steele , 132 S.W.2d 146, 146 (Tex. Civ. App.

– San Antonio 1939 , no writ )

. 1
5. Th e denial of the temporary injunction is moot even where, as here, the final judgment is on appeal. See Jordan v. Landry’s Seafood Restaurant, Inc. ,

1 Accord , Movies & Games 4 Sale, L.P. v. Video Advantage, Inc. , No. 05

- 97

- 00536

- CV, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 3723, *1 (Tex. App.

– Dallas July 17, 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publ ication)

.MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT

– Page 3 SP

- #7248058

- v1

- HHA_Motion_to_Dismiss_Interlocutory_Appeal_as_Moot.docx 89 S.W.3d 737, 741 (Tex. A pp.

– Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (appeal after final judgment dismissed as to denial of temporary injunction; judgment a ffirmed on merits); Lowe v. Farm Credit Bank , 2 S.W.3d at 299

- 300 (appeal from denial of temporary injunction dismissed as moot; fin al judgment affirmed); EMW Manufacturing Co. v. Lemons , 741 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Tex. App.

– Fort Worth 1987) (appeal from denial of temporary injunction voluntarily dismissed; co mplaint about denial in final

- judgment appeal overruled as moot; final judgment r eversed on merits) , rev’d on other grounds , 747 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. 1988) ; cf. Ha r ris
v. Moore , 912 S.W.2d 860, 863 (Tex. App.

– Austin 1995 , no pet. ) (appeal from denial of temporary injunction rejected on alternative grounds of mootness and no abuse of discretion; final judgment reversed ). Appellee Houston Housing Authority respectfully prays: (1) that this appeal be dismissed as moot insofar as it is taken from the trial court’s order denying a temporary injunction; and (2) for such other and further relief to which it may be entitled at law or in equity.MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT

– Page 4 SP

- #7248058

- v1

- HHA_Motion_to_Dismiss_Interlocutory_Appeal_as_Moot.docx R espectfully submitted,

SAMUEL J. LOUIS State Bar No. 12588040 Strasburger & Price, LLP 909 Fannin Street, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77010 713.951.5604 832.397.3503 ( telecopy ) sam.louis@strasburger.com 

### /s/ P. Michael Jung P. MICHAEL JUNG State Bar No. 11054600 KEVIN J. MAGUIRE State Bar No. 12827900 KIMBERLY H. MURPHY State Bar No. 24075619 Strasburger & Price, LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 4400 Dallas, Texas 75202

- 3794 214.651.4300 214.651.4330 ( telecopy ) michael.jung@strasburger.com kevin.maguire@strasburger.com kim.murphy@strasburger.com ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that I have contacted Aaron Streett , Esq., counsel for the appellant , concerning this motion. Mr. Streett has stated that this mot ion is opposed

. 

### /s/ P. Michael Jung P. MICHAEL JUNGMOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT

– Page 5 SP

- #7248058

- v1

- HHA_Motion_to_Dismiss_Interlocutory_Appeal_as_Moot.docx CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this Motion to Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal as Moot has been served on all parties to this appeal by electronic service through eFile Texas.gov on: Aaron Street, Esq., Attorney for Appellant Latter Day Deliverance Revival Church; and Hiram S. Sasser III, Esq., Attorney for Appellant Latter Day Deliverance R evival Church; both on this 7 th day of October, 2015. 

### /s/ P. Michael Jung P. MICHAEL JUNG

### UnofficialCopyOfficeofChrisDanielDistrictClerk

### UnofficialCopyOfficeofChrisDanielDistrictClerk