Opinion
No. 01-09-00042-CV
Opinion issued October 1, 2009.
On Appeal from the 334th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2008-51564.
Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK and Justices BLAND and MASSENGALE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's December 29, 2008 temporary injunction, as supplemented on January 12, 2009. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 2008). We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
The underlying breach-of-contract dispute is whether appellants Chris Stone and Gary Walker violated their January 2007 employment contracts with appellee Glazier Foods Company. Stone and Walker were employees of Glazier Foods, and each of them left to work for Ben E. Keith, which competes with Glazier Foods.
After an initial review, this Court advised the parties that it appeared that all or part of this appeal may be moot due to the expiration of the time periods set forth in Stone's and Walker's employment contracts, and that the Court may dismiss the appeal in whole or part for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Both appellants and appellee submitted additional briefs addressing the mootness issue prior to the submission of the case.
A temporary injunction may be granted by a trial court in accordance with the provisions of Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 65.011. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 65.011 (Vernon 2008). The primary purpose of a temporary injunction is the preservation of the status quo pending trial on the merits. See, e.g., Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993).
Mootness may be raised for the first time on appeal, as the parties must have a justiciable controversy at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal. See, e.g., Bd. of Adjustment of City of San Antonio v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tex. 2002). Mootness is a threshold issue that implicates subject-matter jurisdiction. See Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home Serv. Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Tex. 1993). The mootness doctrine prevents courts from rendering advisory opinions, which are outside the jurisdiction conferred by Texas Constitution article II, section 1. See Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000); see also Morrow v. Corbin, 62 S.W.2d 641, 643-44 (Tex. 1933).
The temporary injunction at issue was granted at the request of, and in favor of, appellee Glazier Foods. The interlocutory appeal before us is appellants Stone's and Walker's request for relief from that temporary injunction. In its brief, Glazier Foods has now taken the position that the appeal is moot, and it has represented to this Court that "the injunction order has expired through the passage of time." Given that Glazier Foods now takes the position that the injunction, which it had previously requested from the trial court to preserve the status quo pending trial, is now expired and without further effect, any consideration by this Court of the merits of that expired injunction would serve no purpose other than to impermissibly render an advisory opinion about the merits of the dispute.
Based upon Glazier Foods's representation that the injunction has expired, the interlocutory appeal is moot, and we dismiss the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.