in Re: Gray & Becker, P.C. and Brian Bishop

NUMBER 13-02-017-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTIBEDINBURG ____________________________________________________________________ IN RE: GRAY & BECKER, P.C. and BRIAN BISHOP ___________________________________________________________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus ___________________________________________________________________ O P I N I O N Before Chief Justice Valdez, Justices Dorsey, and Rodriguez Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez This is an original mandamus proceeding brought by Relators, Gray & Becker, P.C., and Brian Bishop, complaining of the actions of Respondent, the Honorable Martha Huerta, presiding judge of the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. We deny Relators= request for a writ of mandamus. On January 3, 2002, Respondent signed a temporary restraining order in cause number 01-6291-A, which restrained the enforcement of a writ of garnishment issued by the 126th District Court of Travis County. On January 4, 2002, Relators commenced the present action by filing a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for emergency stay with this Court. Relators complain in their petition that the temporary restraining order directly interferes with the jurisdiction of the Travis County district courts, and therefore is void. See In re Guerra & Moore L.L.P., 35 S.W.3d 210, 214 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2000, orig. proceeding). On January 9, 2002, this Court stayed operation of the relief granted in temporary restraining order. Additionally, this Court ordered that neither the Relators nor the Real Parties in Interest withdraw, transfer, or expend the funds which are subject to the garnishment order issued in cause number GN 104246, Gray & Becker, P.C. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., in the 126th District Court of Travis County. This Court was not requested to stay expiration of the temporary restraining order, and we did not do so. The temporary restraining order expired by its own terms on January 16, 2002. Ordinarily, the expiration of an order granting injunctive or protective relief renders the issue moot. Speed v. Keys, 130 Tex. 276, 109 S.W.2d 967, 967 (1937); Hermann Hosp. v. Tran, 730 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ). We do have jurisdiction to review a challenged act that is of such short duration that review cannot be obtained before the issue becomes moot. Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259, 264 (Tex. 1999). However, in order to do so, there must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. Id.; Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Reynolds, 764 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ). In the present case, the temporary restraining order has expired by its own terms; and, the Real Parties in Interest have already intervened in the garnishment action in Travis County and have attacked the underlying judgment and garnishment order in the court of origin. Therefore, we find that the Relators have failed to demonstrate that they would likely be subjected to the same action again. Accordingly, we find that the petition for writ of mandamus is moot and should be dismissed. The petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED as moot. Further, this Court=s order of January 9, 2002, granting the Relators= request for an emergency stay, is VACATED. ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3 Opinion delivered and filed this the 17th day of May, 2002.