Opinion
01-22-00338-CV
08-25-2022
DR. MICHELLE LEGALL, Appellant v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO, THUY FRAZIER, CINDY MENDOZA, AND MCCARTHY AND HOLTHUS, LLP, Appellees
On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2022-26226
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Dr. Michelle Legall, filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court's May 3, 2022 order denying a portion of her application for a temporary restraining order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).
In her motion, Appellant refers to herself as "Michelle Legall-Johnson aka Michelle Legal [sic]."
Discussion
Appellant filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's May 3, 2022 order denying a portion of her application for a temporary restraining order. Appellant appealed that portion of the order "regarding the court[']s finding that it [does] not have jurisdiction over the possession of the property in dispute and can not [sic] sign a temporary order stopping the removal or eviction of [Appellant] from her home."
Appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, asserting Appellant was attempting to appeal an interlocutory order, which is not permitted. The Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that her appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless she filed a written response explaining how this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). We ordered Appellant to file her written response by July 8, 2022, and later granted her an extension of the due date to July 26, 2022. Rather than responding to the notice, Appellant filed a "Motion to Dismiss/Nonsuit Without Prejudice," contending her appeal is now moot. She asserts that because "Appellee has possession of the property and Dr. Legall is no longer in possession of the property . . . the temporary restraining order in dispute is no longer an issue."
This Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the order Appellant challenges is an interlocutory order. "Appellate courts are granted jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders [only] if a statute explicitly provides jurisdiction." Braggs v. Songer, No. 01-18-00642-CV, 2019 WL 1716067, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] Apr. 18, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). There is no statutory provision allowing a party to appeal a trial court's order denying or granting a temporary restraining order. "A temporary restraining order is generally not appealable." In re Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm'n, 85 S.W.3d 201, 205 (Tex. 2002); see also Braggs, 2019 WL 17160767, at *1.
We further lack jurisdiction based on Appellant's assertion that the temporary restraining order she appealed "is no longer an issue." This Court cannot decide a case that has become moot. See Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012); Moody v. Tex. Bd. of Pardons & Parole Div., No. 01-21-00316-CV, 2022 WL 1216174, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] Apr. 26, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("If a proceeding becomes moot, the court must dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.") (citing Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 162).
Conclusion
We grant Appellant's motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.