In Re Leo Lapuerta, M.D., F.A.C.S., and the Plastic Surgery Institute of Southeast Plastic Surgery Institute of Southeast Texas, P.A. v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Opinion issued September 14, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-23-00641-CV
———————————
IN RE LEO LAPUERTA, M.D., F.A.C.S. AND THE PLASTIC SURGERY
INSTITUTE OF SOUTHEAST TEXAS, P.A., Relators
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relators, Leo Lapuerta, M.D., F.A.C.S. and The Plastic Surgery Institute of
Southeast Texas, P.A. filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the trial
court’s June 6, 2023 order granting the motion for new trial of real party in interest,
Jose Torres, amounted to an abuse of discretion.1 Relators further assert that the trial
1
The underlying case is Jose Torres v. Leo Lapuerta, M.D., F.A.C.S. and The Plastic
Surgery Institute of Southeast Texas, P.A., Cause No. 2018-28993, in 113th District
Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Rabeea Sultan Collier presiding.
court’s June 6, 2023 order was “deficient on its face . . . for failing to include any
explanation of the reasons why [the trial court] granted new trial following the jury’s
verdict in favor of [relators] and the take-nothing Final Judgment.” Relators’
mandamus petition requested that this Court grant mandamus relief and “direct [the
trial court] to vacate and set aside [its] June 6, 2023 Order Granting [Real Party in
Interest’s] Motion for New Trial and direct[] [the trial court] to either deny the
Motion for New Trial . . . or sign an amended new trial order that comports with
Texas law.”
In connection with their petition for writ of mandamus, relators filed an
“Unopposed Motion for Immediate Temporary Relief.” In their motion, relators
requested “a temporary stay of all underlying suit proceedings, including the
September 18, 2023 trial setting” pending this Court’s review of relators’ petition
for writ of mandamus. On September 1, 2023, the Court granted relators’ motion,
in part, staying the September 18, 2023 trial setting.
On September 5, 2023, relators filed an “Unopposed Motion for Leave to
Amend Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” In their motion for leave, relators stated
that, after filing the mandamus petition, the trial court entered an “Amended Order
Granting [Real Party in Interest’s] Motion for New Trial, setting out [the trial
court’s] reasons for granting new trial.” Accordingly, relators acknowledged that
2
“the relief originally sought by [r]elators in their Petition and Motion for Immediate
Temporary Relief is now moot.”
As relators acknowledged and as is set forth in their motion for leave, relators
have received the relief sought by their mandamus petition, thereby rendering this
mandamus proceeding moot. See In re Campos, No. 01-21-00247-CV, 2022 WL
3650129, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 25, 2022, orig. proceeding)
(dismissing mandamus petition as moot where relators “received the relief requested
in their mandamus petition” pursuant to subsequent trial court action).
Because relators have received the relief requested in their mandamus
petition, we lift the stay imposed by our September 1, 2023 order and dismiss the
petition for writ of mandamus as moot. We further dismiss all pending motions as
moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.
3