Kirbyville Consolidated Independent School District, Thomas A. Wallis, Georgia Sayers, Chad George, Joey Davis, Clint Smith, Amy Fountain, Marcia Morgan, D'Wanna Rasnick, Dustin Rutherford and Staci Rutherford v. Tammy Reeves, Austin Reeves, Judith Reeves and Jimmy W. Jones ( 2017 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-17-00231-CV
____________________
KIRBYVILLE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
THOMAS A. WALLIS, GEORGIA SAYERS, CHAD GEORGE, JOEY
DAVIS, CLINT SMITH, AMY FOUNTAIN, MARCIA MORGAN,
D’WANNA RASNICK AND DUSTIN RUTHERFORD, Appellants
V.
TAMMY REEVES, AUSTIN REEVES, JUDITH REEVES AND JIMMY W.
JONES, Appellees
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 136th District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. D-200,185
________________________________________________________ _____________
ORDER
Appellees, Tammy Reeves, Austin Reeves, Judith Reeves and Jimmy W.
Jones filed a motion to dismiss this accelerated appeal. Appellees contend the plea
to the jurisdiction was filed in conjunction with a motion to dissolve a temporary
injunction and became moot when the temporary injunction expired. Appellants,
Kirbyville Consolidated Independent School District, Thomas A. Wallis, Georgia
1
Sayers, Chad George, Joey Davis, Clint Smith, Amy Fountain, Marcia Morgan,
D’Wanna Rasnick and Dustin Rutherford, argue that their plea to the jurisdiction is
not moot because they challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction regarding additional
relief requested by the appellees in the trial court.
Generally, for purposes of appellate review of a plea to the jurisdiction, we
consider the live pleadings before the trial court at the time the trial court signed the
order. See City of McKinney v. Hank’s Restaurant Group, L.P., 412 S.W.3d 102,
110 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.). In this case, the appellees filed their request
for discovery under Rule 202 before the date the trial court denied their pleas to the
jurisdiction. The pleas to the jurisdiction were filed on June 9, 2017, and the court
conducted the hearing on the pleas on June 13, 2017. Appellees filed a petition
seeking authorization to conduct Rule 202 depositions on June 13, 2017, and they
filed a motion to make materials available for inspection, copying, and evaluation
on June 20, 2017. The trial court signed the order denying the pleas to the jurisdiction
on June 21, 2017. Thus, when the trial court denied the pleas to the jurisdiction, the
appellees had pending requests for affirmative relief that were subject to the
appellants’ pleas. Because the record shows the appellees were seeking affirmative
relief under Rule 202 before the trial court denied the pleas, and the trial court is
2
required to have jurisdiction to act, the matters presented by the parties are not moot
and the motion to dismiss is denied.
ORDER ENTERED July 19, 2017.
PER CURIAM
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3