Opinion issued March 14, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-11-00321-CV
———————————
JEFFREY O. OLLEY, Appellant
V.
RAAMCO TX. PROPERTIES, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 926925
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jeffrey O. Olley, appealed from the trial court’s judgment signed
April 5, 2011. Because the trial court subsequently granted the motion for nonsuit
filed by appellee, Raamco Tx. Properties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
“[A] suit can become moot at any time, including on appeal, and . . . courts
have an obligation to take into account intervening events that may render a
lawsuit moot.” Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 166–67 (Tex.
2012). With exceptions not applicable to the instant proceeding, “a court cannot
decide a case that has become moot during the pendency of the litigation.” Id. at
162. A case is moot if there ceases to be “a justiciable controversy between the
parties—that is, if the issues presented are no longer ‘live,’ or if the parties lack a
legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. If a proceeding becomes moot, the
court must dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction. Id.
On January 22, 2013, the district clerk filed a supplemental record, reflecting
that the trial court granted appellant’s motion for new trial and then granted
appellee’s motion for non-suit. “A plaintiff has an absolute and unqualified right
to take a nonsuit, as long as the defendant has not made a claim for affirmative
relief.” Quanto Int’l Co. v. Lloyd, 897 S.W.2d 482, 484–85 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 1995, orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 162. A trial court has
no discretion to deny a plaintiff’s motion for nonsuit when, as here, the defendant
has not made a claim for affirmative relief. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315
S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010). A nonsuit “renders the merits of the nonsuited case
moot.” Id. Mootness deprives the court of jurisdiction. See Valley Baptist Med.
Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000).
2
On January 28, 2013, we notified appellant that there did not appear to be a
justiciable controversy remaining between the parties that would be resolved by the
appeal. See State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245–46 (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”).
We notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of
jurisdiction unless he filed a response within 10 days showing grounds for
continuing the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not respond.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss any
pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.
3