PNC Bank, N.A. v. RPCG-GP I, LLC ( 2020 )

Dismiss; Opinion Filed March 27, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00411-CV
PNC BANK, N.A., Appellant
V.
RPCG-GP I, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-01763
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Reichek, and Carlyle
Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying appellant’s special
appearance. Appellee, RPCG-GP-I, LLC, filed a petition pursuant to Rule 202 of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to obtain pre-suit discovery from appellant, PNC
Bank, N.A. Appellant filed a special appearance, asserting that it lacked minimum
contacts with Texas to support specific or general personal jurisdiction. Appellant
also opposed the Rule 202 petition on the merits. After a hearing, the trial court
issued an order denying appellant’s special appearance. The following day, the trial
court issued an order denying appellee’s Rule 202 petition.
Appellant appeals the order denying its special appearance. It asserts that the
trial court erred in denying its special appearance because appellant is a non-resident
corporation that is neither incorporated nor domiciled in Texas and does not conduct
substantial operations in Texas. In response, appellee asserts that this appeal is moot
because the trial court’s denial of its Rule 202 petition disposed of all claims for
relief among the parties.
Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a legal question that is
reviewed de novo. See Tex. Nat. Resource Conservation Comm’n v. I.T.-Davy, 74
S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002). The mootness doctrine implicates a court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. See Trulock v. City of Duncanville, 277 S.W.3d 920, 924 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.).
An appellate court is prohibited from deciding a moot controversy. See Nat’l
Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). “This prohibition
is rooted in the separation of powers doctrine in the Texas and United States
Constitutions that prohibits courts from rendering advisory opinions.” Id. An appeal
becomes moot if the controversy between the parties ceases to exist or any decision
rendered by the appellate court would not affect the parties’ rights. Heckman v.
Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) (court cannot decide case that
has become moot).
There are two exceptions that allow an appellate court to address issues that
are otherwise moot: (1) issues that are capable of repetition yet evading review; and
–2–
(2) issues implicating the collateral consequences doctrine. See Trulock, 277 S.W.3d
at 924 (citing Gen. Land Office of State of Tex. v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569,
571 (Tex. 1990)). “ʻCapable of repetition yet evading review’ is a rare exception to
the mootness doctrine.” Texas A & M University–Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347
S.W.3d 289, 290 (Tex. 2011). It is limited to situations where the following
circumstances are simultaneously present: (1) the challenged action was in its
duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, or the party
cannot obtain review before the issue becomes moot; and (2) there is a reasonable
expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action
again. Id. This exception is further limited because it has only been used to challenge
unconstitutional acts performed by the government. OXY U.S.A., 789 S.W.2d at 571;
Trulock, 277 S.W.3d at 924. The “collateral consequences” exception has been
applied when prejudicial events have occurred “whose effects continued to
stigmatize helpless or hated individuals long after the unconstitutional judgment had
ceased to operate.” In re Sierra Club, 420 S.W.3d 153, 158 (Tex. App.—El Paso
2012, orig. proceeding); see also OXY U.S.A., 789 S.W.2d at 571.
In this case, the only controversy between the parties was appellee’s petition
for pre-litigation discovery under Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
When the trial court denied appellee’s Rule 202 Petition, the controversy between
the parties ceased to exist. Because the controversy no longer exists, this appeal is
moot. See Trulock, 277 S.W.3d at 924. Appellant urges this Court to determine
–3–
whether the trial court’s denial of its special appearance will have a preclusive effect
in any future litigation between the parties. However, appellant makes no allegation
that would bring the appeal of its special appearance within either exception to the
mootness doctrine.
Having determined that the controversy between the parties is moot and no
exception to the mootness doctrine applies under the facts of this case, we overrule
appellant’s issues. Appellant’s interlocutory appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a).
/Bill Pedersen, III//
BILL PEDERSEN, III
JUSTICE
190411f.p05
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
PNC BANK, N.A., Appellant On Appeal from the 160th Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-19-00411-CV v. Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-01763.
Opinion delivered by Justice
RPCG-GP I, LLC, Appellee Pedersen, III. Justices Reichek and
Carlyle participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
It is ORDERED that appellee RPCG-GP I, LLC recover its costs of this
appeal from appellant PNC BANK, N.A.
Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2020.
–5–