Scott D. Levy & Associates P.C. and Scott D. Levy v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Appeal from 127th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued November 10, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00733-CV ——————————— SCOTT D. LEVY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. AND SCOTT D. LEVY, Appellants V. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 127th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2014-00570 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants, Scott D. Levy & Associates, P.C. and Scott D. Levy, filed their notice of appeal seeking review of the August 29, 2014 oral ruling made by the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(a). The trial court had ordered appellants to post a $950,000.00 supersedeas bond within ten days to stay execution of the foreign judgment while the underlying foreign case was on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This ruling was memorialized in a written order signed by the trial court on October 9, 2014, denying appellants’ motion to stay suit/plea in abatement, which was filed as part of a supplemental clerk’s record in this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.2, 27.3. On June 26, 2015, this appeal was stayed pursuant to the notice of bankruptcy filing by the appellee, Corinthian Colleges, Inc. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2; see also 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (West 2010). On August 23, 2016, the district clerk filed a second supplemental clerk’s record in this Court, attaching the trial court’s order, signed on June 21, 2016, dismissing the underlying lawsuit with prejudice based on the Ninth Circuit’s June 9, 2016 reversal of the foreign judgment. On August 30, 2016, because it appeared that this appeal may be moot, this Court’s order and notice of intent to dismiss for want of jurisdiction reinstated this appeal and notified appellant that this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). Appellant failed to timely respond. This Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.012, 51.014(a)(1)–(12) (West Supp. 2016) (listing appealable interlocutory orders); CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (“Unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only 2 have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments.”). After the trial court’s June 21, 2016 order dismissed the underlying trial court case with prejudice, that rendered this appeal moot and, thus, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See, e.g., Gen. Land Office of State of Tex. v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tex. 1990) (“As a consequence of the trial court’s granting the nonsuit, the temporary injunction ceased to exist and the appeal became moot.”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Huddle. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
