In Re Bridger Insurance Services, as Manging General Agent for Redpoint County Mutual Insurance Company v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00249-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued May 22, 2025.

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NOS. 01-25-00249-CV

——————————— IN RE BRIDGER INSURANCE SERVICES, AS MANAGING GENERAL AGENT FOR REDPOINT COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Relator, Bridger Insurance Services, as Managing General Agent for Redpoint

County Mutual Insurance Company, filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

1 The underlying case is Eddie Alvarez Alvarado v. Timothy Key, Jr., Jason Allen, Jose L. Avila, and Joe Mackenzie Avila, Cause No. 2024-20281, pending in the 11th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Kristen Brauchle Hawkins, presiding. complaining of the trial court’s September 23, 2024 Order Appointing Attorney Ad

Litem. On April 17, 2025, the trial court withdrew the complained-of September 23,

2024 order, thus rendering moot the controversy for which the relator seeks

mandamus relief.

The mootness doctrine implicates subject-matter jurisdiction. City of Dallas

v. Woodfield, 305 S.W.3d 412, 416 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. dism’d). “The

mootness doctrine applies to cases in which a justiciable controversy exists between

the parties at the time the case arose, but the live controversy ceases because of

subsequent events.” Id.

This Court cannot decide a case that has become moot. See Heckman v.

Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012); see also In re Salverson, No.

01-12-00384-CV, 2013 WL 557264, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 14,

2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). “If a proceeding becomes moot, the [C]ourt

must dismiss the proceeding . . . .” Id. Because the trial court has vacated the order

challenged by Relator in his Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Relator “has

received the relief sought [in] [its] mandamus petition,” we must dismiss this

mandamus proceeding as moot. In re Campos, No. 01-21-00247-CV, 2022 WL

3650129, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 25, 2022, orig. proceeding)

(dismissing mandamus petition as moot where “the successor trial court judge signed

an order vacating the discovery order challenged in the mandamus proceeding”); see

2 In re Haywood, No. 01-21-00645-CV, 2022 WL 10207672, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 18, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (relator’s mandamus

petition rendered moot where relator “received the relief sought”); see also In re

Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding)

(“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any

stage of the legal proceedings . . . .”).

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.