In Re Solaris Transportation, LLC, Solaris Oilfield Infrastructure, Inc., and Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-25-00819-CV

IN RE SOLARIS TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Solaris Oilfield Infrastructure, Inc., and Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 4, 2026

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED AS MOOT

Relators filed their petition for writ of mandamus on December 17, 2025, challenging the

trial court’s November 17, 2025 order authorizing net worth discovery. We requested the real

parties in interest and the respondent to file their responses, if any. On January 16, 2025, the real

parties in interest filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the matter had become moot because they

had unilaterally stipulated not to pursue the net worth discovery at issue. This motion was opposed

by relators who claimed the unilateral stipulation was insufficiently enforceable. We agreed and

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2022CI23251, styled Leslie Abrego Castrellon, Individually as Wrongful Death Beneficiary and Sole Heir/Representative of Ricardo Arreola, Deceased; and Rosa M. Arreola, Individually and as Wrongful Death Beneficiary of Ricardo Arreola, Deceased v. Conlan Tire Co., LLC, et al, pending in the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Antonia Arteaga presiding. 04-25-00819-CV

denied the real parties in interest’s motion to dismiss. The real parties in interest subsequently filed

a motion to set aside the November 17, 2025 order and further stipulated in the trial court that they

would not again seek net worth discovery from relators in the underlying matter. On February 19,

2026, the trial court granted the real parties in interest’s motion to set aside and vacated the

November 17, 2025 order authorizing net worth discovery thus rendering moot the controversy for

which the relators seek 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.). “A

proceeding becomes moot ‘if, since the time of filing, there has ceased to exist a justiciable

controversy between the parties—that is, if the issues presented are no longer ‘live,’ or if the parties

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” In re Baja Freight, Ltd., No. 04-23-01010-CV,

2023 WL 8609284, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 13, 2023, no pet.) (quoting Heckman v.

Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012)); 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 ....”).

The order challenged by relators has been set aside and vacated. Further, the real parties in

interest have stipulated that they will not further pursue the discovery at issue. The controversy

-2- 04-25-00819-CV

has become moot. Accordingly, we grant the real parties in interest’s motion to dismiss. The

petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot.

-3-