City of Houston v. Aerospace Operating Associates, Limited Partnership

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 20, 2025
• Docket: 01-24-00831-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued May 20, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00831-CV ——————————— CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant V. AEROSPACE OPERATING ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2023-18626

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, the City of Houston (the “City”), filed a notice of appeal from the

trial court’s October 10, 2024 interlocutory order denying the City’s plea to the

jurisdiction. On April 16, 2025, the City filed a “Motion to Dismiss.” In its motion,

the City noted that exhibits were missing from its underlying trial court pleadings, and “[r]ather than utilize scarce judicial resources,” the City requested that the Court

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a) (permitting voluntary dismissal of

appeal on motion of appellant).

No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c). The City’s motion did not include a certificate of

conference stating whether appellee, Aerospace Operating Associates, Limited

Partnership, was opposed to the relief requested in the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P.

10.1(a)(5).

However, on April 25, 2025, appellee filed a document titled “Response to

[the City’s] Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Appellee’s Motion to Affirm Trial

Court’s Order.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2). In its response, appellee stated that

the City’s motion to dismiss be denied because “[d]ismissal would actually waste

judicial resources by forcing the trial court to reconsider a jurisdictional question it

has already decided” and the City’s request for dismissal was, “[i]n both purpose

and effect[,] . . . a motion for extension of time to file its brief,” not a motion to

dismiss. Appellee asserted that the City moved to dismiss its appeal as an attempt

to circumvent this Court’s order that no further extensions of the deadline to file its

brief would be granted, absent extraordinary circumstances.

2 Appellee therefore requested that the Court deny the City’s motion and affirm

the trial court’s order. Or, alternatively, deny the City’s motion and order the City

to file its brief within twenty days.

The Court grants the City’s motion and dismisses the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions, including

appellee’s motion to affirm the trial court’s order, as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.