In Re Jose Daniela Jaico Ahumada, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of A.L.J., Minor (Deceased) v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Jose Daniela Jaico Ahumada, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of A.L.J., Minor (Deceased) v. the State of Texas (In Re Jose Daniela Jaico Ahumada, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of A.L.J., Minor (Deceased) v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion issued May 6, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00951-CV ——————————— IN RE JOSE DANIELA JAICO AHUMADA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF A.L.J., MINOR (DECEASED), Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Jose Daniela Jaico Ahumada, Individually and as Representative of
the Estate of A.L.J., filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court
improperly issued an order granting special appearances after relator nonsuited her
case.1 Because the challenged order was issued by the former trial court judge, this
1 The underlying case is Jose Daniela Jaico Ahumada, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of A.L.J., Minor (Deceased) v. Unique Crown Hospitality LLC, et al., cause number 2024-19020, pending in the 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Nathan J. Milliron presiding. original proceeding was abated to allow the successor trial court judge to reconsider
the order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b). The successor judge subsequently issued an
“Order on Reconsideration” (1) concluding that relator’s notice of nonsuit was
effective before the granting of the special appearances and (2) vacating the order
granting special appearances.
Relator filed a letter informing our Court that she believes the Order on
Reconsideration “renders this mandamus proceeding moot and that the petition can
therefore properly be dismissed as moot.” We agree. See In re Kapur, No. 01-24-
00918-CV, 2025 WL 626187, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 27, 2025,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismissing mandamus petition as moot where
successor trial court judge vacated challenged order). Accordingly, we reinstate this
original proceeding on the Court’s active docket and dismiss the petition for writ of
mandamus as moot. We further dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Jose Daniela Jaico Ahumada, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of A.L.J., Minor (Deceased) v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jose-daniela-jaico-ahumada-individually-and-as-representative-of-the-texapp-2025.