Opinion
NUMBER 13-15-00586-CV
01-27-2016
IN RE CARL H. SCALISE
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria
Per CuriamMemorandum Opinion
Relator, Carl H. Scalise, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the trial court's December 4, 2015 order compelling relator to appear for an oral deposition. This Court granted emergency relief, stayed the trial court's order, and requested that the real party in interest, Rebecca Scalise, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. By response, Rebecca asserted that she was withdrawing her notice of deposition and filing a motion to vacate the trial court's order compelling relator's deposition. Accordingly, Rebecca asserted that this original proceeding was moot and should be dismissed.
Currently before the Court is relator's opposed motion to abate this original proceeding. According to this motion, Rebecca had not filed a motion to vacate the trial court's December 4, 2015 order, so relator filed his own motion to vacate in the trial court. Relator asked this Court to abate this petition for writ of mandamus pending the trial court's ruling on his motion to vacate the trial court's December 4, 2015 order.
On January 26, 2016, the trial court signed an "Agreed Order Vacating Order Compelling Deposition of Carl. H. Scalise." In this order, the trial court vacated its December 4, 2015 order compelling relator's deposition. This order is agreed and approved by counsel for relator and Rebecca.
An appellate court is prohibited from deciding a moot controversy or rendering an advisory opinion. See Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex.1999); City of Farmers Branch v. Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462, 469 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.). If a controversy ceases to exist or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome at any stage, the case becomes moot. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. 2005); Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). Stated otherwise, an issue may be moot if it becomes impossible for the court to grant effectual relief for any reason. In re H & R Block Financial Advisors, Inc., 262 S.W.3d 896 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding); see Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that this original proceeding is moot. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) ("A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings . . ."); State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994) (stating that, for a controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought). Accordingly, we LIFT, the stay previously imposed by this Court and DISMISS the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). This dismissal is without regard to the merits and is without prejudice to refiling if necessary. Relator's opposed motion to abate is likewise DISMISSED as moot.
PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 27th day of January, 2016.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).