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 Wright 1 Opinion by Justice Nowell Hong Zhuang sued Carlos Rodr iguez, 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 ca se eventually proceeded to a bench trial, and the trial court rendered judgment agai nst 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 w as appealing from the motion for new trial and the final judgment, she does not raise any issues ch allenging the final judgment in this appeal.–2– Generally, when a motion for new tria l is timely filed and the motion is granted during the trial court’s plenary powe r, 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 proceed ings 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. A pp.—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 Ja n. 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 cl ean 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 T EX

. R.
C IV

. P. 329b. Thus, in this case, “the trial c ourt 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.