in Re Cornelio Morales ( 2013 )

NUMBER 13-13-00513-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE CORNELIO MORALES
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1
On September 27, 2013, Cornelio Morales, filed a petition for writ of mandamus
and request for emergency temporary relief through which he contended that the trial
court abused its discretion by failing or refusing to rule on: (1) Morales’s motions to
compel depositions; and (2) Morales’s request to continue the submission date on a
motion for summary judgment filed by the real party in interest, the Hidalgo County
Irrigation District No. 6 (“Irrigation District”), until the depositions sought by Morales had
1
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is
not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
been completed. On September 30, 2013, this Court granted the request for
emergency relief and ordered the trial court proceedings to be stayed. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective
until the case is finally decided.”). That same day, the Court also requested a response
to the petition for writ of mandamus from the Irrigation District.
On October 9, 2013, Morales filed a supplemental petition for writ of mandamus
stating that the trial court had rendered four orders that were the subject of this petition
for writ of mandamus on the same day that this Court stayed the trial court proceedings.
These orders: (1) granted the Irrigation District’s motion for summary judgment; (2)
denied Morales’s motion to compel the depositions of the Irrigation District’s board
members; (3) denied Morales’s motion to compel the deposition of the Irrigation
District’s corporate representative; and (4) denied Morales’s motion to compel the
deposition of Oscar Garza. Morales contended that the trial court entered each of these
orders in violation of the stay.
On October 25, 2013, the Irrigation District filed a motion requesting that we
dismiss this original proceeding on grounds that it has been rendered moot by the trial
court’s rulings. According to the motion, the trial court issued the four orders in the
underlying cause on the same day, but before, this Court issued its order staying the
trial court proceedings. The Irrigation District’s motion to dismiss is supported by an
affidavit establishing the relative times that the trial court signed the underlying orders
and this Court issued its ruling regarding the stay.
Because the trial court has ruled on Morales’s motions, the petition for writ of
mandamus asking us to require the trial court to rule is moot. See In re Kellogg Brown
2
& 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.”); 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).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus, the supplemental petition for writ of mandamus, the response, the reply,
and the various other pleadings on file, is of the opinion that this original proceeding has
been rendered moot. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss, LIFTS the
stay previously imposed by this Court, and DISMISSES the petition for writ of
mandamus as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), (d). All other pending motions,
including the “Emergency Motion for Exception to Stay,” are likewise DISMISSED as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
5th day of November, 2013.
3