Opinion
01-21-00344-CV
12-20-2022
BRIAN MUCK D/B/A FASTLANE SERVICES, Appellant v. SADAF FAIZI AND SHUKRULLAH KHAN FAIZI, Appellees
On Appeal from the 165th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 201858045
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Hightower, and Guerra.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Brian Muck, doing business as FastLane Services, sued Sadaf Faizi and Shukrullah Khan Faizi. The trial court dismissed his lawsuit for want of prosecution.
Muck appeals. We dismiss his appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
On March 4, 2021, the trial court dismissed this suit for want of prosecution.
Muck filed a timely verified motion to reinstate his suit in the trial court. When the trial court did not rule on Muck's motion to reinstate by May 18, 2021, the motion was overruled by operation of law. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3) (unruled on motion to reinstate overruled by operation of law 75 days after dismissal of suit).
Muck appealed from the trial court's dismissal order. In his appellate brief, he contends the trial court erred in (1) dismissing his suit for want of prosecution; and (2) not granting him an oral hearing on his verified motion to reinstate his suit.
On June 17, 2021, after Muck had appealed, the trial court reinstated his suit. On this date, the trial court still had the plenary power to do so. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3) (trial court's plenary power expires 30 days after motion to reinstate is overruled by operation of law regardless of whether appeal has been perfected).
This court notified the parties that the trial court's reinstatement order appears to have rendered the appeal moot and invited the parties to brief this issue if they disagree that the case has become moot. Muck responded to the notice by filing a motion to dismiss his appeal on the ground that the appeal had become moot.
MOOTNESS
Because the trial court has already granted Muck the relief he seeks on appeal, his appeal has become moot. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006) (indicating that appeal becomes moot when appellate relief is pointless); see also Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (stating that appeal becomes moot when appellate court's decision on merits cannot affect parties' rights). When, as here, an appeal becomes moot, we lack subject-matter jurisdiction to render a decision on the merits and must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Mortell v. Pruett, No. 02-19-00123-CV, 2019 WL 5608236, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Oct. 31, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing as moot appeal from trial court's order dismissing suit for want of prosecution because record showed trial court had since reinstated suit).
CONCLUSION
As this appeal is moot, we grant Muck's motion to dismiss his appeal and dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.