Windmill Water Supply Corporation v. Santa Perez, Rogelio Ramirez, Rosie Hill, Richard Gonzales, Diana Olvedo-Karau, and Lydia Carrasco

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-26-00265-CV

WINDMILL WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION, Appellant

v.

Santa PEREZ, Rogelio Ramirez, Rosie Hill, Richard Gonzales, Diana Olvedo-Karau, and Lydia Carrasco,

Appellees

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas Trial Court No. 2026-01-36357-CV Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 12, 2026 DISMISSED On April 1, 2026, appellant filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction. On June 30, 2026, we received a supplemental clerk’s record containing a June 26, 2026 final judgment in this appeal.

The sole issue before a trial court in a temporary injunction hearing is whether the applicant should be able to preserve the status quo pending trial on the merits. Kahn v. Helvetia Asset

04-26-00265-CV

Recovery Inc., No. 04-14-00012-CV, 2014 WL 3519070, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 16, 2014, pet. denied). An appellate court limits its review of the grant or denial of a temporary injunction to whether the trial court abused its discretion in signing the interlocutory order. Id. If the trial court signs a final judgment during the pendency of the appeal of the order granting or denying an application for a temporary injunction, the case on appeal becomes moot. Id.; see Isuani v. Manske–Sheffield Radiology Group, 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991). Here, a final judgment has been entered and the plain language of the temporary injunction provides that upon its entry, the temporary injunction would no longer be effective.

Because this appeal appeared moot, we ordered appellant to file a written response explaining why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Appellant acknowledged that the appeal becomes moot if the trial court signs a final judgment.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as moot. 1 See Kahn, 2014 WL 3519070, at *1; Isuani, 802 S.W.2d at 236.

PER CURIAM

1 Appellant further responded that we are required to maintain the appeal on our docket because we are required to determine whether the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction and because the trial court erred by failing to stay the trial pending appeal. We express no opinion as to appellant’s appeal of the final judgment, or the issues appellant may raise in connection with the propriety of the final judgment, which remains pending in this court.