AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed February 13, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00983-CV 

HONG ZHUANG, Appellant 

V. 

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18388 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Wright1

Opinion by Justice Nowell 

Hong Zhuang sued Carlos Rodriguez, and, several months later, the trial court 

entered summary judgment in her favor. Rodriguez timely filed a motion for new 

trial, which the trial court granted. The case eventually proceeded to a bench trial, 

and the trial court rendered judgment against Zhuang. On appeal, Zhuang raises two 

issues challenging the trial court’s order granting Rodriguez’s motion for new trial.2

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

1

 The Hon. Carolyn Wright, Justice, Assigned 

2

 Although Zhuang’s notice of appeal stated she was appealing from the motion for new trial and the 

final judgment, she does not raise any issues challenging the final judgment in this appeal. 
 –2– 

Generally, when a motion for new trial is timely filed and the motion is 

granted during the trial court’s plenary power, the order granting a new trial is not 

subject to review either by direct appeal from that order or from a final judgment 

rendered after further proceedings in the trial court. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health 

Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005) (citing Cummins v. Paisan Constr. Co., 

682 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1984)); Nguyen v. Terra Nostra Realty, Inc., No. 01-20-

00668-CV, 2022 WL 4240909, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 15, 

2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); Interest of R.G.A.C.L.G., No. 05-20-00457-CV, 2022 WL 

123104, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 13, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); Dupree v. 

Dupree, No. 14-20-00296-CV, 2021 WL 4899228, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] Oct. 21, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). When a motion for new trial is granted, the 

court “wipes the slate clean and starts over.” Wilkins, 160 S.W.3d at 563. 

Rodriguez timely filed the motion for new trial, and the trial court granted the 

motion during its period of plenary power over the original judgment. See TEX. R.

CIV. P. 329b. Thus, in this case, “the trial court wiped the slate clean when it granted 

[Rodriguez’s] motion for new trial; it is as though the court’s first order granting 

summary judgment never existed.” Wilkins, 160 S.W.3d at 563. Consequently, the 

order is not subject to review on appeal, and we decline to consider the issues Zhuang 

raises on appeal. 

 
 –3– 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

 

21983F.P05 

 

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

HONG ZHUANG, Appellant 

No. 05-21-00983-CV V. 

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 101st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18388. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and Wright 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial 

court is AFFIRMED. 

 It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal. 

Judgment entered this 13th day of February 2023.