Opinion issued July 14, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00215-CV
———————————
LETHA PILLAI, Appellant
V.
JESUS VEGA AND DALIA VEGA, Appellees
On Appeal from the 234th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2011-68692
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Letha Pillai, has appealed from a final judgment signed on
December 18, 2013. We dismiss the appeal.
At the parties’ request, this Court referred this appeal to mediation. Soon
thereafter, the mediator and appellees, Jesus and Dalia Vega, notified the Court
that a settlement was reached and the parties had entered into a settlement
agreement. The Clerk of this Court then notified the parties that the appeal might
be dismissed unless they demonstrated the existence of a live controversy between
them as to the merits of the appeal. Pillai responded and requested that the appeal
remain on the Court’s active docket “until notice is given that the settlement
agreement has been carried out and completed . . . .”
Pillai then filed motions seeking enforcement of the parties’ settlement
agreement and sanctions against the Vegas. We denied the motions and again
notified the parties that we might dismiss the appeal unless they demonstrated the
existence of a live controversy between them as to the merits of the appeal. See
Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656, 658–59 (Tex. 1996) (stating
that, when dispute regarding settlement agreement arises while underlying action is
on appeal, party seeking enforcement must file separate breach of contract action).
Pillai next filed a motion to keep the appeal on the Court’s active docket. Pillai
again acknowledged that the case was settled at mediation in June 2014 and
indicated that the Vegas had not executed the required settlement documents. The
Vegas responded to Pillai’s motion, stating not only that the matter was resolved
by a mediated settlement agreement but also that “[a]ll documents subsequently
2
requested by [Pillai] in regards to that mediated Settlement Agreement have now
been signed” and delivered to Pillai’s counsel.
The existence of a live controversy is essential to the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction. See Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex.
2000). Accepting their representations as true, the parties have settled their dispute
and no live controversy exists between Pillai and the Vegas. Any disputes that
arose and may remain over the performance of the parties’ settlement agreement
are distinct from the issues presented in this appeal. See Webb v. Am. Express
Centurion Bank, No. 01-11-01106-CV, 2015 WL 1621407, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 7, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). We, therefore, conclude
that no live controversy exists in this appeal between the parties. See id.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss as
moot all pending motions. The Harris County District Clerk shall release from its
registry all of the funds being held from check number 51514613 in Cause No.
2011–68692, Jesus and Dalia Vega v. Letha Pillai, in the 234th District Court of
Harris County, Texas, plus all interest accrued on these funds to T.W. Proctor on
behalf of Letha Pillai. We discharge and release Letha Pillai from any liability
under the Clerk’s Certificate of Deposit in Lieu of Supersedeas Bond.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.
3