Harris County, Texas v. Daryl Edwards and Lisa Capuchino A/N/F Aaliyah Capuchino, an Incapacited Person

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00581-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 16, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00581-CV ——————————— HARRIS COUNTY, Appellant V. DARYL EDWARDS, JR., AALIYAH CAPUCHINO, DARIANE CHATMAN, LINDSAY LOCKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAELYN CHAPMAN, AND CHARLES CHAPMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAELYN CHAPMAN, Appellees

On Appeal from the 215th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2021-21971

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Harris County, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s July

26, 2025 interlocutory order denying Harris County’s plea to the jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8). On September 26, 2025,

appellees, Lindsay Locke, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Jaelyn

Chapman, and Charles Chapman, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of

Jaelyn Chapman, filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction &

Filing of Notice of Nonsuit.” In the motion, appellees noted that in the time since

Harris County filed its notice of appeal, all parties which had claims against Harris

County “non-suited their claims.”

Appellees argue that the “appeal is, thus, moot.” See Univ. of Tex. Med.

Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon ex rel. Shultz, 195 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex.

2006) (where plaintiff “filed [a] nonsuit while this matter was pending on

interlocutory appeal from [appellant’s] pretrial plea to the jurisdiction,” Texas

Supreme Court “conclude[d] that the nonsuit deprived the court of appeals of

jurisdiction”). Appellees therefore requested that the Court dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction. Appellees further requested that each party bear its own costs.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

On September 30, 2025, Harris County filed a response to appellees’ motion

to dismiss. In its response, Harris County noted that on September 25, 2025, “the

trial court signed an order dismissing the underlying case as to Harris County.”

Based on this dismissal as well as “the representations made by [a]ppellees in the

2 court below,” Harris County stated that it “d[id] not oppose” the motion to dismiss

the appeal.

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

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c). Accordingly, the Court grants appellees’ motion and

dismisses the appeal as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We further direct the

Clerk of this Court that costs are to be taxed against the party incurring the same.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.