Court Opinion

ID: 9959578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 08:14:10.134998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:30.183380
License: Public Domain

In The

                              Court of Appeals

                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                             __________________

                             NO. 09-23-00109-CV
                             __________________

             DITCO, LLC – SERIES REAL ESTATE, Appellant

                                       V.

      WILLIAM CHAMBERS AND SHERRY CHAMBERS, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 457th District Court
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 23-02-02675-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In this interlocutory appeal, Ditco, LLC – Series Real Estate (hereinafter

“Ditco”) appealed from the trial court’s order of March 22, 2023, denying Ditco’s

Application for Temporary Injunction. While the appeal was pending with this

Court, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees William

Chambers and Sherry Chambers, and Ditco filed a separate appeal of that judgment

with this Court. In Ditco’s appeal from the summary judgment, a supplemental

                                       1
clerk’s record was filed that includes a Judgment signed on October 23, 2023, and

the Judgment includes language that it disposed of all claims and parties.

      On March 21, 2024, this Court notified the parties in this appeal of the filing

of the supplemental record with the Final Judgment and requested that the parties

file a response by April 1, 2024 explaining why this interlocutory appeal should not

be dismissed as moot and notifying the parties that, if no response is received by the

deadline, the case may be dismissed on any day after the deadline. On April 1, 2024,

Appellant filed a response, acknowledging that this interlocutory appeal should be

dismissed as moot. We received no response from Appellees by the deadline.

      “If, while on the appeal of the granting or denying of the temporary injunction,

the trial court renders final judgment, the case on appeal becomes moot.” Isuani v.

Manske-Sheffield Radiology Grp., P.A., 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991); see

Qwest Commc’ns. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000) (A

temporary injunction usually operates until dissolved or until a final hearing.).

      Accordingly, we conclude this appeal is moot and we dismiss it for lack of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d

137, 162 (Tex. 2012) (When an appeal becomes moot, the appellate court must

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction).

                                          2
      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                                PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 10, 2024
Opinion Delivered April 11, 2024

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

                                       3