Court Opinion

ID: 9378384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 08:11:00.831355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:20.886443
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-22-00428-CV
                               __________________

                         IN RE THOMAS AVALOS JR.

__________________________________________________________________

                          Original Proceeding
             253rd District Court of Liberty County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 22DC-CV-01607
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Thomas Avalos Jr. argued that the trial

court abused its discretion by issuing a temporary restraining order that: failed to

reasonably explain the need to issue a restraining order without notice; insufficiently

identified the irreparable harm that would result unless a restraining order issued;

and granted relief to a party with unclean hands. We temporarily stayed the

temporary restraining order to the extent that it ordered Avalos to return all

construction equipment on his property within three days and requested a response

from the Real Party in Interest, Fortis Construction, LLC (“Fortis”).

                                          1
      Fortis filed a suggestion of mootness after the temporary restraining order

expired. In response, Avalos argued the challenged act was of such short duration

that he could not obtain review before the temporary restraining order expired and

that the trial court could issue another temporary restraining order in the future.

       “A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at

any stage of the legal proceeding[.]” In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d

732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). An exception to the mootness doctrine

applies if the challenged act is of such short duration that the party cannot obtain

review before the issue becomes moot and there is a reasonable expectation that the

same action will occur again if the appellate court does not consider the issue. Blum

v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259, 264 (Tex. 1999). The mere physical or theoretical

possibility that the same party may be subjected to the same action again is not

sufficient to satisfy the capable-of-repetition prong of the exception to the mootness

doctrine. City of Dallas v. Woodfield, 305 S.W.3d 412, 419 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2010, no pet.).

      In this case, the trial court did not extend the temporary restraining order

beyond the fourteen day term that commenced on December 9, 2022. The trial court

signed a temporary injunction order on January 5, 2023.1 Avalos has not shown there

      1That
          order is the subject of an accelerated appeal filed as Appeal Number 09-
23-00009-CV, Thomas Avalos Jr. v. Fortis Construction, LLC.
                                        2
is a realistic possibility that the trial court will issue another temporary restraining

order.

         We conclude that this original proceeding has become moot, no exception to

the doctrine of mootness applies, and we lack jurisdiction over this original

proceeding. Accordingly, we lift the order granting temporary relief and dismiss the

petition for a writ of mandamus without reference to the merits. Any pending

motions are denied as moot.

         PETITION DISMISSED.

                                                            PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 3, 2023
Opinion Delivered March 9, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

                                           3