Zaza Mamulaishvili v. Steve Nicandros, Luis Giusti, Tyler Nelson and Frontera Resources Corporation Appeal from 281st District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued June 2, 2022. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-21-00321-CV ——————————— ZAZA MAMULAISHVILI, Appellant V. STEVE NICANDROS, LUIS GIUSTI, TYLER NELSON AND FRONTERA RESOURCES CORPORATION, Appellees On Appeal from the 281st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2021-03816 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Zaza Mamulaishvili filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal from the trial court’s orders denying his Special Appearance and granting Appellee Frontera Resources Corporation’s Application for a Temporary Injunction. On April 20, 2022, Appellees Steve Nicandros, Luis Giusti, Tyler Nelson, and Frontera Resources Corporation filed a “Notification of Facts Mooting Appeal of Denial of Special Appearance and Grant of Temporary Injunction” stating that on March 4, 2022, the trial court entered a final judgment ordering that Appellant take nothing on his claims against Appellees, granting damages and attorneys’ fees to Appellees on their counterclaims against Appellant, and entering a permanent injunction against Appellant. Appellees stated that in light of the trial court’s final judgment, Appellant’s appeal is now moot. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a), on any party’s motion or on its own initiative, this Court may dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Specifically, if a case becomes moot, the court must dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. See Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). On May 5, 2022, this Court notified Appellant that this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a written response within ten days of the notice, or May 16, 2022, explaining why, in light of the Final Judgment issued on March 4, 2022, this Court has jurisdiction over his interlocutory appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). The notice informed Appellant that if a meritorious response was not received by the stated deadline, the Court could dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction without further notice. Appellant did not file a response. 2 Based on the trial court’s March 4, 2022 Final Judgment ordering that Appellant take nothing on his claims against Appellees, granting damages and attorneys’ fees to Appellees on their counterclaims against Appellant, and entering a permanent injunction against Appellant, we conclude Appellant’s interlocutory appeal is moot. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Landau, Hightower, and Rivas-Molloy. 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.
