U.S. Jin Chen Enterprise, Inc. and Shaanxi Jinye Science Technology & Education Co. Group Ltd. v. PI-Chi Chen

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 30, 2006
• Docket: 14-06-00774-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 30, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 30, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00774-CV

U.S. JIN CHEN ENTERPRISE, INC., Appellant

V.

PI-CHI CHEN a/k/a PI-CHEE CHEN, VONI CHEN a/k/a PI-CHUN CHEN, RICHARD CHUN-HUA, HOUSTON T-SHIRT BAG COMPANY, JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, AND JOHN DOE III, Appellees

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2003-56332

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from the judgment nunc pro tunc signed by the trial court on August 2, 2006.  Appellant appealed the original judgment in this cause in appellate cause number 14-05-00395-CV.  The judgment nunc pro tunc was signed while that appeal was pending.  A panel of this court issued an opinion on October 26, 2006, affirming the judgment.  U.S. Jin Chen Enterprise, Inc. v. Pi-Chi Chen, No. 14-05-00395-CV, 2006 WL 3040755 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] Oct. 26, 2006, no pet. h.).  In disposing of this appeal, the court addressed the original judgment, the August 2, 2006, judgment nunc pro tunc, and appellant=s objection to the judgment nunc pro tunc.  Id. at *2.

If a controversy ceases to exist, the case becomes moot.  Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001).  Generally, an appeal is moot when the court=s action on the merits cannot affect the rights of the parties.  VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young, 860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993).  Here, the controversy between the parties concerning the judgment nunc pro tunc has already been adjudicated in appellate cause number 14-05-00395-CV.  Because the appellant=s complaints concerning the judgment nunc pro tunc have already been adjudicated, this appeal is moot. 

On November 1, 2006, the parties were advised of the court=s intention to dismiss the appeal as moot, and the court requested the parties to file responses on or before November 10, 2006, showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal.  No response was filed.

Because the only issues that could be raised in this appeal are moot, the appeal must be dismissed.  See Gen. Land Office v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex. 1990).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 30, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Hudson, and Guzman.