Saroj Haddington LLC v. Michell Puckett and Designer Diva Resale, LLC Appeal from 164th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued July 28, 2022 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00066-CV ——————————— SAROJ HADDINGTON, LLC, Appellant V. MICHELLE PUCKETT AND DESIGNER DIVA RESALE, LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the 164th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2021-80445 MEMORANDUM OPINION Saroj Haddington, LLC has filed this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(4) (allowing appeal from grant or denial of temporary injunction). Because the temporary injunction has expired, we lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Background Haddington appeals from the trial court’s January 7, 2022 temporary injunction order. In their brief, the appellees, Michelle Puckett and Designer Diva Resale, LLC, represent that the trial court’s order has since expired. Consistent with their representation, the trial court’s order states an expiration date of March 31, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the clerk of court issued a notice of intent to dismiss this suit for lack of jurisdiction because the temporary injunction has expired. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a) (court may dismiss appeal for lack of jurisdiction after giving parties 10 days’ notice). We invited Haddington to file a response in support of jurisdiction, but it has not filed a response, and the deadline to do so has passed. Jurisdiction A suit becomes moot when there is no longer a justiciable controversy between the parties or when the parties no longer have a legally cognizable stake in the outcome. State ex rel. Best v. Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2018). Mootness happens when events make it impossible to grant the relief requested or otherwise affect the parties’ rights or interests. Id. This can happen at any time, including on appeal. Id. When it does happen, the court loses subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. 2 When a temporary injunction expires and thus no longer exists, an appeal from the order becomes moot. Jordan v. Landry’s Seafood Rest., 89 S.W.3d 737, 741 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). When a temporary injunction becomes moot in this way, we must dismiss the appeal. Id.; e.g., Ellington Indus. Park 25A v. Denenburg, 642 S.W.2d 8, 10 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no writ) (dismissing appeal from temporary injunction as moot because temporary injunction order had already expired by its own terms). This is blackletter law, which Texas appellate courts routinely apply. E.g., Stone v. Glazier Foods Co., No. 01-0900042-CV, 2009 WL 3152187, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 1, 2009, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal from temporary injunction that was mooted by expiration of order during pendency of appeal); Roswell v. CleaverBrooks Sales & Serv., No. 14-19-00673-CV, 2020 WL 897101, at *1 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 25, 2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (same). The temporary injunction on appeal expired by its own terms in March 2022. Thus, there is no longer a justiciable controversy between the parties with respect to the temporary injunction. Any ruling we made would not affect the parties’ rights or interests. This appeal is therefore moot, and we lack subject-matter jurisdiction. 3 Conclusion We dismiss this appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Hightower. 4
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.
