Latter Day Deliverance Revival Church and Christian Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church v. the Houston Housing Authority

ACCEPTED 01-15-00790-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/7/2015 12:05:33 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

NO. 01-15-00790-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS 10/7/2015 12:05:33 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE AT HOUSTON Clerk __________________________________________________________________

LATTER DAY DELIVERANCE REVIVAL CHURCH APPELLANT

V.

THE HOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY APPELLEE __________________________________________________________________

MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT [filed by Appellee Houston Housing Authority] __________________________________________________________________

Appellee Houston Housing Authority (“HHA”) respectfully moves this honorable Court to dismiss this appeal as moot insofar as it is taken from the trial court’s order denying a temporary injunction.

1. This appeal originated as an interlocutory (accelerated) appeal from a September 1, 2015, trial court order (Exhibit A to this motion) denying the appellant’s application for a temporary injunction.

2. On September 11, 2015, the trial court signed an order (the “September 11 order,” Exhibit B to this motion) granting HHA’s plea to the jurisdiction. This order had the effect of disposing of all remaining parties and issues in the case, and therefore constituted a final judgment.

MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT – Page 1 SP-#7248058-v1-HHA_Motion_to_Dismiss_Interlocutory_Appeal_as_Moot.docx

3. The appellant (along with a co-appellant) has appealed from the September 11 order. It appears that the clerk of this Court has treated the appeal from the final judgment as part of this accelerated appeal.

4. Since the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending final judgment, and since a temporary injunction expires upon final judgment, it is routinely held that the rendition of a final judgment moots an appeal from an order denying a temporary injunction. See Isuani v. Manske-Sheffield Radiology Group, P.A., 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam); Lowe v. Farm Credit Bank, 2 S.W.3d 293, 299-300 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1999, pet. denied); Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. Austin Independent School District, 973 S.W.2d 378, 384 (Tex. App. – Austin 1998, no pet.); Bonilla v. Roberson, 918 S.W.2d 17, 20-21 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.); Roadrunner Investments, Inc. v. Texas Utilities Fuel Co., 526 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. Civ. App. – Fort Worth 1975, no writ); City of Corpus Christi v. Cartwright, 281 S.W.2d 343, 343-44 (Tex. Civ. App. – San Antonio 1955, no writ); Spencer v. Steele, 132 S.W.2d 146, 146 (Tex. Civ. App. – San Antonio 1939, no writ).1

5. The denial of the temporary injunction is moot even where, as here, the final judgment is on appeal. See Jordan v. Landry’s Seafood Restaurant, Inc.,

1 Accord, Movies & Games 4 Sale, L.P. v. Video Advantage, Inc., No. 05-97-00536-CV, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 3723, *1 (Tex. App. – Dallas July 17, 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publi- cation).

MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT – Page 2 SP-#7248058-v1-HHA_Motion_to_Dismiss_Interlocutory_Appeal_as_Moot.docx

89 S.W.3d 737, 741 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (appeal after final judgment dismissed as to denial of temporary injunction; judgment affirmed on merits); Lowe v. Farm Credit Bank, 2 S.W.3d at 299-300 (appeal from denial of temporary injunction dismissed as moot; final judgment affirmed); EMW Manufacturing Co. v. Lemons, 741 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1987) (appeal from denial of temporary injunction voluntarily dismissed; complaint about denial in final-judgment appeal overruled as moot; final judgment reversed on merits), rev’d on other grounds, 747 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. 1988); cf. Harris v. Moore, 912 S.W.2d 860, 863 (Tex. App. – Austin 1995, no pet.) (appeal from denial of temporary injunction rejected on alternative grounds of mootness and no abuse of discretion; final judgment reversed).

Appellee Houston Housing Authority respectfully prays: (1) that this appeal be dismissed as moot insofar as it is taken from the trial court’s order denying a temporary injunction; and (2) for such other and further relief to which it may be entitled at law or in equity.

MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT – Page 3 SP-#7248058-v1-HHA_Motion_to_Dismiss_Interlocutory_Appeal_as_Moot.docx

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ P. Michael Jung P. MICHAEL JUNG State Bar No. 11054600 KEVIN J. MAGUIRE State Bar No. 12827900 SAMUEL J. LOUIS KIMBERLY H. MURPHY State Bar No. 12588040 State Bar No. 24075619

Strasburger & Price, LLP Strasburger & Price, LLP 909 Fannin Street, Suite 2300 901 Main Street, Suite 4400 Houston, TX 77010 Dallas, Texas 75202-3794 713.951.5604 214.651.4300 832.397.3503 (telecopy) 214.651.4330 (telecopy) sam.louis@strasburger.com michael.jung@strasburger.com kevin.maguire@strasburger.com kim.murphy@strasburger.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that I have contacted Aaron Streett, Esq., counsel for the appellant, concerning this motion. Mr. Streett has stated that this motion is opposed.

/s/ P. Michael Jung P. MICHAEL JUNG

MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT – Page 4 SP-#7248058-v1-HHA_Motion_to_Dismiss_Interlocutory_Appeal_as_Moot.docx

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this Motion to Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal as Moot has been served on all parties to this appeal by electronic service through eFile Texas.gov on: Aaron Street, Esq., Attorney for Appellant Latter Day Deliverance Revival Church; and Hiram S. Sasser III, Esq., Attorney for Appellant Latter Day Deliverance Revival Church; both on this 7th day of October, 2015.

/s/ P. Michael Jung P. MICHAEL JUNG

MOTION TO DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AS MOOT – Page 5 SP-#7248058-v1-HHA_Motion_to_Dismiss_Interlocutory_Appeal_as_Moot.docx

Un of fic ial C op yO ffic e of C hr is Da nie lD ist ric tC ler k

EXHIBIT A

Un of fic ial C op yO ffic e of C hr is Da nie lD ist rict C ler k

EXHIBIT B