Opinion issued July 14, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00215-CV

———————————

LETHA PILLAI, Appellant

V.

JESUS VEGA AND DALIA VEGA, Appellees

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2011-68692

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Letha Pillai, has appealed from a final judgment signed on 

December 18, 2013. We dismiss the appeal.
2

At the parties’ request, this Court referred this appeal to mediation. Soon 

thereafter, the mediator and appellees, Jesus and Dalia Vega, notified the Court 

that a settlement was reached and the parties had entered into a settlement 

agreement. The Clerk of this Court then notified the parties that the appeal might 

be dismissed unless they demonstrated the existence of a live controversy between 

them as to the merits of the appeal. Pillai responded and requested that the appeal 

remain on the Court’s active docket “until notice is given that the settlement 

agreement has been carried out and completed . . . .”

Pillai then filed motions seeking enforcement of the parties’ settlement 

agreement and sanctions against the Vegas. We denied the motions and again 

notified the parties that we might dismiss the appeal unless they demonstrated the 

existence of a live controversy between them as to the merits of the appeal. See 

Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656, 658–59 (Tex. 1996) (stating 

that, when dispute regarding settlement agreement arises while underlying action is 

on appeal, party seeking enforcement must file separate breach of contract action).

Pillai next filed a motion to keep the appeal on the Court’s active docket. Pillai 

again acknowledged that the case was settled at mediation in June 2014 and 

indicated that the Vegas had not executed the required settlement documents. The 

Vegas responded to Pillai’s motion, stating not only that the matter was resolved 

by a mediated settlement agreement but also that “[a]ll documents subsequently 
3

requested by [Pillai] in regards to that mediated Settlement Agreement have now 

been signed” and delivered to Pillai’s counsel.

The existence of a live controversy is essential to the exercise of appellate 

jurisdiction. See Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 

2000). Accepting their representations as true, the parties have settled their dispute 

and no live controversy exists between Pillai and the Vegas. Any disputes that 

arose and may remain over the performance of the parties’ settlement agreement 

are distinct from the issues presented in this appeal. See Webb v. Am. Express 

Centurion Bank, No. 01-11-01106-CV, 2015 WL 1621407, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 7, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). We, therefore, conclude 

that no live controversy exists in this appeal between the parties. See id.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss as 

moot all pending motions. The Harris County District Clerk shall release from its 

registry all of the funds being held from check number 51514613 in Cause No.

2011–68692, Jesus and Dalia Vega v. Letha Pillai, in the 234th District Court of 

Harris County, Texas, plus all interest accrued on these funds to T.W. Proctor on 

behalf of Letha Pillai. We discharge and release Letha Pillai from any liability 

under the Clerk’s Certificate of Deposit in Lieu of Supersedeas Bond.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.