Arellano & Phebus, S.C. v. Beatriz Adriana Cantu Appeal from 295th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued July 26, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00828-CV ——————————— ARELLANO & PHEBUS, S.C., Appellant V. BEATRIZ ADRIANA CANTU, Appellee On Appeal from the 295th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2014-22592 MEMORANDUM OPINION Although the mediator has filed a report stating that the parties to this appeal have settled their dispute, the parties have not filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1. The existence of an actual controversy is essential to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzales, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000). “Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies.” Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999); see City of Farmers Branch v. Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462, 469 (Tex. App.– Dallas 2007, no pet.) (noting that court may only decide issues presenting “a live controversy at the time of the decision”). If a controversy ceases to exist or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome at any stage, the case becomes moot. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. 2005); Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001) (noting that “a controversy must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal”). “[C]ourts 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). If a proceeding becomes moot, the court must dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction. See id. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal for lack of a live controversy, the parties failed to adequately respond. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale. 2

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.