paul-l-foster-william-eugene-powell-r-steven-hicks-nash-m-horne ( 2015 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00097-CV
Paul L. Foster, William Eugene Powell, R. Steven Hicks, Nash M. Horne,
Robert L. Stillwell, Alex M. Cranberg, Wallace L. Hall, Jr., Brenda Pejovich,
Ernest Aliseda, and Jeffrey D. Hildebrand, in their official capacities as Regents of the
University of Texas System; and Craig Westemeier, in his official capacity as
Associate Athletics Director, Appellants
v.
American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc. and the American Society of Landscape
Architects’ Library and Education Advocacy Fund, Inc., Individually and on behalf of
Sustainable Sites Initiative, an Unincorporated Nonprofit Association, Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-13-003564, HONORABLE JOHN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s order denying appellants’ plea
to the jurisdiction, appellants have filed a suggestion of mootness. Appellants contend that the case
has become moot on appeal because the University of Texas has disclaimed any ownership of the
intellectual property that is the source of the parties’ dispute. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,
166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (noting that case becomes moot if controversy ceases to exist on
appeal); 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).
In a response to appellants’ suggestion of mootness, appellees agree that the appeal
is moot but they contend that it is moot for a different reason. Appellees contend that the case has
become moot because appellees also have divested their interest in the subject intellectual property
and have non-suited their claims against all parties with prejudice in the trial court. See Houston
Mun. Emps. Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 248 S.W.3d 151, 153, 156-57 (Tex. 2007) (dismissing case of
one of plaintiffs on appeal and vacating trial court’s orders to extent that they affected plaintiff’s
claims because plaintiff filed voluntary non-suit).
Given the parties’ agreement that this case is moot, we vacate the trial court’s order
and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. See Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137,
162 (Tex. 2012) (“If a case is or becomes moot, the court must vacate any order or judgment
previously issued and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.” (citing Speer v. Presbyterian
Children’s Home & Serv. Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227, 229–30 (Tex. 1993))); Ferrell, 248 S.W.3d at
156–57.
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland
Vacated and Dismissed
Filed: May 22, 2015
2