Arellano & Phebus, S.C. v. Beatriz Adriana Cantu ( 2016 )

Opinion issued July 26, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00828-CV
———————————
ARELLANO & PHEBUS, S.C., Appellant
V.
BEATRIZ ADRIANA CANTU, Appellee
On Appeal from the 295th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2014-22592
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Although the mediator has filed a report stating that the parties to this appeal
have settled their dispute, the parties have not filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1. The existence of an actual controversy is essential to the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzales, 33
S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000). “Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot
controversies.” Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex.
1999); see City of Farmers Branch v. Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462, 469 (Tex. App.–
Dallas 2007, no pet.) (noting that court may only decide issues presenting “a live
controversy at the time of the decision”). If a controversy ceases to exist or the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome at any stage, the case
becomes moot. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. 2005);
Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001) (noting that “a controversy must
exist between the parties at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the
appeal”). “[C]ourts have an obligation to take into account intervening events that
may render a lawsuit moot.” Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 166–
67 (Tex. 2012). If a proceeding becomes moot, the court must dismiss the proceeding
for want of jurisdiction. See id.
After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal for lack of a live
controversy, the parties failed to adequately respond. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale.
2