in Re Mark E. MacIas ( 2016 )

NUMBER 13-16-00339-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE MARK E. MACIAS
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
On June 28, 2016, relator Mark E. Macias filed a petition for writ of mandamus
contending that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to dismiss the
underlying cause of action as baseless under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. See
generally TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a. Macias and the real parties in interest, Jose A. Rodriguez,
William J. Tinning, the Law Office of William J. Tinning, Frank Enriquez, and the Law
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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); TEX.
R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Office of Frank Enriquez have now filed a joint motion to dismiss this original proceeding
on grounds that the parties have agreed to settle the underlying case. The parties thus
ask that we dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus with each party to bear its own
costs and fees.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the joint motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that the joint motion to dismiss should be
granted. 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 . . .”); 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, we
DISMISS this original proceeding as moot with each party to bear its own costs and fees.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
3rd day of October, 2016.
2