Myra Morris, Kleberg County Attorney Kira Talip, and Kleberg County Judge Rudy Madrid v. Corina Madrigal ( 2015 )

NUMBER 13-15-00203-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
MYRA MORRIS,
KLEBERG COUNTY ATTORNEY KIRA TALIP, AND
KLEBERG COUNTY JUDGE RUDY MADRID, Appellants,
v.
CORINA MADRIGAL, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 105th District Court of
Kleberg County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellants, Myra Morris, Kleberg County Attorney Kira Talip, and Kleberg County
Judge Rudy Madrid seek to appeal a March 23, 2015 order granting a petition for
depositions under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 202.
Currently before the Court is appellants’ “Supplemental Statement Concerning
Jurisdiction,” which states that on March 28, 2015, the trial court signed an order vacating
the March 23, 2015 order subject to appeal in this cause. Appellants state that the trial
court’s March 28, 2015 order may have divested the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction
over this appeal.
Because the trial court has vacated the order subject to appeal, we conclude that
this appeal has been rendered moot. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d
732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between
the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings . . .”); 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 proceeding, including the appeal” and that, if controversy ceases to exist,
case becomes moot); State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994)
(stating that, for a controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between
the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought). Accordingly, this
appeal is DISMISSED. See Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex.
2012); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
11th day of June, 2015.
2