In Re Bruce Molzan v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 18, 2025
• Docket: 01-24-01033-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued March 18, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-01033-CV ——————————— IN RE BRUCE MOLZAN, RELATOR

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Bruce Molzan, filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that

this Court vacate the trial court’s November 11, 2024 order granting Defendant’s

Motion To Exclude Witnesses.1 On January 9, 2025, this Court abated the mandamus

to permit the newly elected district judge to reconsider his predecessor’s ruling. See

1 The underlying case is Bruce Molzan v. Luis Duno-Gottberg, cause number 2017- 07972, pending in the 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Nathan Milliron, presiding. TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b). On January 29, 2025, Judge Nathan Milliron vacated the

November 11, 2024 order that is the basis of this mandamus and entered an order

denying Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Witnesses.2

Because relator has now received the relief he requested from the trial court,

we reinstate the original proceeding and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus

and any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Guiney.

2 Appellate courts may take judicial notice of facts outside the record when necessary to determine jurisdiction. See TEX. R. EVID. 201(d); Freedom Commc'ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623–24 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam) (taking judicial notice of plea agreement entered in federal court, which was not contained in appellate record, because agreement was relevant to jurisdictional issue); In re Lombana, 542 S.W.3d 699, 701 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (taking judicial notice of order that is publicly available on district clerk’s website). Because the issue of mootness implicates subject-matter jurisdiction, we may take judicial notice of facts outside the record in determining whether the case is moot. See Freedom Commc’ns, 372 S.W.3d at 624. And, we may do so sua sponte. See TEX. R. EVID. 201(c)(1); see Graves v. Diehl, No. 01-00-00412-CV, 2006 WL 1699527, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 22, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“Though [appellees] have not requested us to take judicial notice of the records from the bankruptcy proceeding, we may do so sua sponte.”).