Opinion issued September 29, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00349-CV
———————————
ZIAUNNISA K. LODHI, Appellant
V.
SHAH A. HAQUE, Appellee
On Appeal from the 507th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2018-03243
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Ziaunnisa K. Lodhi, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial
court’s order dismissing her case for want of prosecution. In two issues, Lodhi
contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her petition for divorce and in
denying her motion to reinstate. Because the issues before us are moot, we dismiss
the appeal.
Background
This is a divorce case with a tortured history. In 2013, Lodhi married appellee,
Shah A. Haque, in New York. See Lodhi v. Haque, No. 04-18-00917-CV, 2019 WL
5765787, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 6, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In
2015, Haque filed for divorce in DeWitt County, Texas, and the case was later
transferred to Harris County, where it was dismissed on February 14, 2017. Id.
Subsequently, Haque filed for divorce in Alaska, and Lodhi filed for divorce in New
York. Id. Eventually, those cases were dismissed. Id. On March 8, 2017, Lodhi
filed a petition for divorce in Bexar County. Id. And, on October 5, 2017, Haque
filed a counter-petition for divorce. Id. On November 30, 2017, Lodhi moved to
dismiss her petition for divorce, asserting that neither she nor Haque had met the 90-
day residency requirement.1 Id. Haque, whose own counter-petition for divorce
1
A suit for divorce may not be maintained in this state unless, at the time the suit is
filed, either the petitioner or the respondent has been: (1) a domiciliary of this state
for the preceding six-month period and (2) a resident of the county in which the suit
is filed for the preceding 90-day period. TEX. FAM. CODE § 6.301. “Although
section 6.301 is not itself jurisdictional, it is akin to a jurisdictional provision
because it controls a party’s right to maintain a suit for divorce and is a mandatory
requirement that cannot be waived.” In re Green, 385 S.W.3d 665, 669 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2012, orig. proceeding).
2
remained pending, opposed the motion. Id. On December 14, 2017, the Bexar
County trial court denied Lodhi’s motion to dismiss. Id. at *2.
On January 18, 2018, while the matter was pending in Bexar County, Lodhi,
proceeding pro se, filed the instant petition for divorce in the 507th District Court of
Harris County. On February 23, 2018, Lodhi again moved to dismiss the case in
Bexar County, arguing that the Bexar County court “did not have ‘dominant
jurisdiction,’ even though the Bexar County case was the first-filed case as compared
to the recently filed Harris County case.” Id. Lodhi also nonsuited her petition for
divorce in Bexar County. Id. At a March 29, 2018 hearing in Bexar County on
Lodhi’s motion to dismiss, Lodhi stipulated that Haque had lived in Bexar County
for over 90 days. Id. And, the Bexar County trial court denied Lodhi’s motion to
dismiss. Id. Haque filed a third amended counter-petition in the Bexar County case.
Lodhi, having previously nonsuited her claims, then filed a new petition for
divorce in the Bexar County trial court, and, on April 30, 2018, Haque filed a fourth
amended counter-petition. Id. at *3. On May 29, 2018, after a three-day trial, the
Bexar County trial court rendered a divorce. After the Bexar County trial court
issued a written final decree, Lodhi appealed the decree to the Fourth Court of
Appeals, asserting that the trial court erred by rendering a decree because Harris
County had dominant jurisdiction over the parties’ divorce. See id. at *3.
3
On June 11, 2018, Lodhi filed a Plea in Abatement in the instant case in Harris
County, asserting that the Bexar County trial court lacked jurisdiction to render the
divorce because the parties did not meet the county residency requirement. She
asked the Harris County trial court to abate the case filed there until the jurisdictional
matters were concluded. On February 4, 2019, the Harris County trial court
dismissed the case for want of prosecution. After a hearing, the trial court denied
Lodhi’s motion to reinstate the case. Lodhi appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her
case and its denial of her motion to reinstate.
Jurisdiction
As a threshold matter, “courts have an obligation to take into account
intervening events that may render a lawsuit moot.” Heckman v. Williamson Cty.,
369 S.W.3d 137, 166–67 (Tex. 2012). Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to decide
moot controversies and render advisory opinions. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic
Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). A justiciable controversy between the
parties must exist at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal, or
the case is moot. Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). “If a
controversy ceases to exist—‘the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties
lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’—the case becomes moot.” Id.
(quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982)). The same is true if an appellate
court’s judgment cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then existing
4
controversy. Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. 2007) (“An appeal is moot
when a court’s action on the merits cannot affect the rights of the parties.”).
On November 6, 2019, after Lodhi filed her appellant’s brief in the instant
appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the final decree issued in Bexar
County. This Court sent notice to Lodhi of its intent to dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction, noting that, because it appeared that she was already the subject of a
final divorce decree in Bexar County, this Court could have no practical legal effect
on her petition for divorce in Harris County and it appeared that her appeal is moot.
Lodhi filed a response, asserting that the appeal is not moot because she filed a
petition for review of the Fourth Court’s decision in the Texas Supreme Court, which
was pending. The Texas Supreme Court has denied Lodhi’s petition for review.
Because a judgment of this court would have no practical legal effect upon an
existing controversy, we conclude that Lodhi’s appeal of the trial court’s order
dismissing her petition for divorce is moot. See Zipp, 218 S.W.3d at 73.
Accordingly, we hold that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See
Jones, 1 S.W.3d at 86 (appellate courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot controversies
and render advisory opinions).
5
Conclusion
Because the issues before us are moot, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
Sherry Radack
Chief Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Lloyd and Countiss.
6