Court Opinion

ID: 9385819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 08:08:44.976505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:45.073115
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued March 28, 2023

                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                          First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                               NO. 01-22-00089-CV
                            ———————————
    IN RE INTERCONTINENTAL TERMINALS COMPANY, LLC, Relator

            Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relator Intercontinental Terminals Company, LLC advised this Court on

March 1, 2022 that the parties had mediated and reached a settlement but that the

settlement was subject to the approval of the Department of Labor under the

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.1 When no further update was

received, the Court issued an order on July 28, 2022, requesting a status update

1
      The underlying case is Michael Grable v. Texas Mooring, LLC and Intercontinental
      Terminals Company, LLC, cause number 2019-59120, pending in the 165th District
      Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Ursula A. Hall presiding.
within ten days of the date of the order. Real party in interest Michael Grable

responded on August 5, 2022, stating that the Department of Labor had approved

the settlement and that resolution of the settlement should be completed within thirty

days and the parties would file a joint motion for dismissal. Although real party

advised this Court via letter filed on August 26, 2022 that the parties had filed a joint

stipulation to dismiss the trial court case with prejudice, no motion to dismiss the

original proceeding, or any further update, was filed.

      On November 10, 2022, the Court issued an order advising the parties that it

had come to the Court’s attention that the trial court had signed orders of nonsuit

dismissing the plaintiff’s (real party’s) claims with prejudice. Accordingly, the

Court advised the parties that the Court might dismiss the original proceeding as

moot unless relator filed a response within ten days explaining why the proceeding

was not moot. Relator failed to file a response, but real party filed a letter on

November 23, 2022, stating that the controversy between the parties had been

resolved and no justiciable controversy remained pending in the trial court.

Therefore, real party asserted that the petition for writ of mandamus should be

dismissed as moot.

      We dismiss this proceeding as moot. Any other pending motions are also

dismissed as moot.

                                   PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

                                           2