Johnnie Lee Carter v. Stevens Transport Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 6, 2006
• Docket: 08-06-00132-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOHNNIE LEE CARTER,                                    )

                                                                              )                No.  08-06-00132-CV

Appellant,                          )

                                                                              )                     Appeal from the

v.                                                                           )

                                                                              )              County Court at Law #5

STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC.,                          )

                                                                              )             of El Paso County, Texas

Appellee.                           )

                                                                              )                   (TC# 2006-1387)

                                                                              )

O P I N I O N

This appeal arises from a breach of contract action filed by Appellant Johnnie Lee Carter against Appellee Stevens Transport, Inc.  During the pendency of the underlying action, Appellant filed a notice of intent to orally depose Appellee.  In response, Appellee moved to quash Appellant=s notice of intent to depose.  The trial court granted Appellee=s motion and Appellant appealed the trial court=s ruling.  While his appeal was pending, Appellant non‑suited the underlying case.

Pending before the Court is Appellee=s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 42.3.  When the judgment of this Court can have no effect on an existing controversy, a case becomes moot.  Restrepo v. First National Bank of Dona Ana County, New Mexico, 888 S.W.2d 606, 607 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1994, no writ).  Because Appellant has taken a non-suit in the trial court, a judgment of this Court can have no effect on an existing controversy, because there is no longer any controversy.  See Restrepo, 888 S.W.2d at 607.  Thus, Appellant=s case has become moot.  See id.  Accordingly, we grant Appellee=s motion and dismiss the appeal.

July 6, 2006

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

Before Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.