Myra Morris, Kleberg County Attorney Kira Talip, and Kleberg County Judge Rudy Madrid v. Corina Madrigal

Opinion

NUMBER 13-15-00203-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

MYRA MORRIS, KLEBERG COUNTY ATTORNEY KIRA TALIP, AND KLEBERG COUNTY JUDGE RUDY MADRID, Appellants,

v.

CORINA MADRIGAL, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, Myra Morris, Kleberg County Attorney Kira Talip, and Kleberg County Judge Rudy Madrid seek to appeal a March 23, 2015 order granting a petition for depositions under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 202.

Currently before the Court is appellants’ “Supplemental Statement Concerning Jurisdiction,” which states that on March 28, 2015, the trial court signed an order vacating the March 23, 2015 order subject to appeal in this cause. Appellants state that the trial court’s March 28, 2015 order may have divested the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over this appeal.

Because the trial court has vacated the order subject to appeal, we conclude that this appeal has been rendered moot. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings . . .”); Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001) (noting that “a controversy must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal proceeding, including the appeal” and that, if controversy ceases to exist, case becomes moot); State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994) (stating that, for a controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. See Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 11th day of June, 2015.