Court Opinion

ID: 9363406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 00:09:24.469584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.761190
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed January 12, 2023

                                       In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                    __________

                                 No. 11-22-00312-CV
                                     __________

          IN RE CHAPARRAL PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC

                          Original Mandamus Proceeding

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Relator, Chaparral Pipeline Company, LLC, filed an original petition
requesting that we grant its Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus and direct
the Honorable Dana W. Cooley, presiding judge for the 132nd District Court of
Scurry County, to appoint special commissioners in the underlying condemnation
proceeding. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 21.014 (West 2014).
      In a letter, Judge Cooley responded to the petition and stated that, on
November 28, 2022, she appointed special commissioners along with alternate
special commissioners as required by the statute. Judge Cooley’s order is consistent
with the statutory requirements in that it appoints three disinterested real property
owners who reside in Scurry County as special commissioners, and it provides two
alternate special commissioners that meet the same criteria. See id. We sent a letter
to Relator stating that, upon the order by the trial court, the proceeding appeared to
be moot and should be dismissed. Our letter provided adequate time for a response
if the parties disagreed with our conclusions. In a response, Relator agreed with our
conclusions and stated that this proceeding should be dismissed as moot.
      We find that the petition for writ of mandamus is now moot because Judge
Cooley provided Relator with the specific relief it sought by appointing special
commissioners. See ERCOT, Inc., v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund,
LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 634–35 (Tex. 2021) (“A case become moot when . . . the
court can no longer grant the requested relief or . . . any decision would constitute
an impermissible advisory opinion.”); Matthews v. Kountze Indep. Sch. Dist., 484
S.W.3d 416, 418 (Tex. 2016) (“[D]ismissal may be appropriate when subsequent
events make ‘absolutely clear that the [challenged conduct] could not reasonably be
expected to recur.’” (second alteration in original) (citations omitted)). We lack
jurisdiction to decide a mandamus petition that has been rendered moot. See Panda
Power, 619 S.W.3d at 634.
      Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of
jurisdiction.

                                              PER CURIAM

January 12, 2023
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                          2