Court Opinion

ID: 9955731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 11:16:02.220582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:18.242183
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                        TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                               No. 10-23-00361-CV

TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT,
JOHN SILOVSKY, AND STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                        Appellants
v.

STEVEN WIESER AND JASON CHANCEY,
                                                        Appellees

                          From the 74th District Court
                           McLennan County, Texas
                          Trial Court No. 2023-2412-3

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellees Steven Wieser and Jason Chancey have filed an unopposed “Motion to

Dismiss Based on Nonsuit.”

      In the underlying case, Wieser and Chancey filed an original petition and

application for ex parte temporary restraining order and temporary injunction against

Appellants Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, John Silovsky, and the State of Texas
(collectively, TPWD). The trial court signed an order granting Wieser’s and Chancey’s

application for a temporary restraining order.

        TPWD thereafter filed a general denial of Wieser’s and Chancey’s allegations and

a plea to the jurisdiction. TPWD did not request any counter-relief from Wieser or

Chancey. Following a hearing, the trial court denied TPWD’s plea to the jurisdiction.

        TPWD subsequently filed this interlocutory appeal. We granted Wieser’s and

Chancey’s emergency motion for temporary relief and extended the trial court’s

temporary restraining order until further order of this Court.

        Wieser and Chancey explain in their motion to dismiss that this appeal is now

moot because they filed a notice of nonsuit in the trial court on March 11, 2024. “Subject

matter jurisdiction requires that the party bringing the suit have standing, that there be a

live controversy between the parties, and that the case be justiciable.” State Bar of Tex. v.

Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994). “Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding

moot controversies.” Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999).

        A nonsuit is effective when filed. Bush v. Hines, 594 S.W.3d 713, 714 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2019, no pet.) (citing Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon, 195

S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam)). Accordingly, when a plaintiff nonsuits his

claims against a defendant who has no pending claims for affirmative relief, there is no

longer a case or controversy between the parties. See Estate of Blackmon, 195 S.W.3d at

100; see also Hirner v. Doe, No. 12-08-00046-CV, 2009 WL 1871794, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler

June 30, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). We therefore conclude that there is no longer a case or

Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Wieser                                                  Page 2
controversy between Wieser and Chancey and TPWD. Accordingly, we lack subject

matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Gomez, 891 S.W.2d at 245.

        We lift our November 14, 2023 order extending the trial court’s temporary

restraining order. Wieser’s and Chancey’s “Motion to Dismiss Based on Nonsuit,” filed

on March 11, 2024, is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                                MATT JOHNSON
                                                Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed March 28, 2024
[CV06]

Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Wieser                                                   Page 3