Opinion · Texas Supreme Court
Valley Baptist Medical Center v. Gonzalez Ex Rel. M.G.
44 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 41
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Texas Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Date
- 2000-10-26
- Topic
- litigation
holding that appellate court has no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinion once dispute on appeal becomes moot | holding that appellate courts have no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions where issues raised in a pending matter have become moot | concluding that discovery dispute “became moot when” party “complied with the trial court’s discovery order” | holding that appellate courts have no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions where issues raised in a pending matter have become moot | holding that appellate court has no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinion once dispute on appeal becomes moot | holding that an appeal of a trial court’s discovery order was moot and there was no longer a live controversy between the parties because the appellant had 26 complied with the order | noting that an appellate court’s opinion is advisory if the court does not have jurisdiction over the pending matter | holding appeal of rule 202 presuit discovery order permitting deposition became moot when appellant produced representative for deposition | stating that courts have no jurisdiction over mooted controversies because they cannot issue advisory opinions | explaining that a mooted appeal presents no live controversy, such that a court has no jurisdiction to render an opinion thereon | explaining that a mooted appeal presents no live controversy, such that a court has no jurisdiction to render an opinion thereon | stating that courts have no jurisdiction over mooted controversies because they cannot issue advisory opinions | stating that under article II, section 1 of Texas Constitution, “courts have no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions” | concluding appeal moot because “there ceased to be a live controversy” between the parties and dismissing cause as moot | requiring that actual controversy exist between parties to appeal for appellate court to exercise jurisdiction | holding appeal of rule 202 presuit discovery order permitting deposition became moot when appellant produced representative for deposition | concluding appeal moot because “there ceased to be a live controversy” between parties and dismissing cause as moot | noting that Texas courts do not have jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions | noting that Texas courts do not have jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions | noting that existence of live controversy is essential to appellate jurisdiction | noting that Texas courts have no jurisdiction to render advisory opinions | requiring actual controversy to exist between parties to appeal for appellate court to exercise jurisdiction | requiring existence of actual controversy between parties to appeal for appellate court to exercise jurisdiction | vacating court of appeals’ judgment and opinion on moot controversy as advisory and dismissing cause as moot | vacating judgment and opinion of court of appeals as advisory because case became moot before opinion issued | vacating court of appeals’ judgment and opinion on moot controversy as advisory and dismissing cause as moot | explaining that because appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to render advisory opinions under article II, section 1 of the Texas Constitution, courts may not issue opinions on matters that have been mooted by the trial court’s rendition of a final judgment | requiring actual controversy exist between parties to appeal for appellate court to exercise jurisdiction | ruling on moot controversy constitutes impermissible advisory opinion | ruling on moot controversy constitutes impermissible advisory opinion | vacating court of appeals’ judgment and opinion on moot controversy as advisory | vacating court of appeals’ judgment and opinion on moot controversy as advisory | “Under article II, section 1 of the Texas Constitution, courts have no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions.” | “Under article II, section 1 of the Texas Constitution, courts have no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions.” | “Under article II, section 1 of the Texas Constituti
Citator
- Cited by
- 129 opinions
Ester Gonzalez, individually and as next friend of Michael Gonzalez, filed a petition to investigate claims under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 in anticipation of a products liability suit. She named as respondents Valley Baptist Medical Center, Dr. Edwin Mierisch, and the unknown manufacturers of a fetal vacuum extractor. The trial court granted the petition and ordered presuit discovery, including the deposition of a Valley Baptist representative, under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.4(a)(2).
Valley Baptist filed a notice of appeal with an emergency motion to stay depositions; the court of appeals denied the emergency motion. Valley Baptist then filed a petition for writ of mandamus with an emergency motion to stay depositions. The court of appeals initially granted the stay but then, two weeks later, denied Valley Baptist’s petition for writ of mandamus and vacated the stay. Valley Baptist subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court, which was denied.
In the meantime, another court of appeals panel granted Valley Baptist’s motion to reconsider its motion for emergency relief to stay depositions. Gonzalez immediately filed a motion to vacate the stay order and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction; the court of appeals first denied Gonzalez’ motion, but then, *822 sua sponte, reconsidered the motion and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction in a published opinion.
While Valley Baptist’s motion for rehearing en banc was pending, it produced a representative for the ordered deposition and notified the court of appeals that the dispute may be moot. The court of appeals, sitting en banc, then withdrew its earlier opinion, and, concluding that rule 202 presuit discovery orders are not final and appealable when the party from whom discovery is sought is an anticipated party to the litigation, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Valley Baptist Medical Center v. Michael Gonzalez, Jr., 18 S.W.3d 673 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi). In its opinion, the court of appeals did not acknowledge that Valley Baptist had already appeared for the deposition. Nor did the court consider whether the appeal may be moot.
In its petition for review, Valley Baptist argues that its dispute with Gonzalez became moot when Valley Baptist produced a corporate representative for deposition. In the alternative, Valley Baptist contends that even if the dispute is not moot, the court of appeals erred in determining that rule 202 discovery orders are not final and appealable.
We conclude that Valley Baptist’s appeal became moot when it produced a representative for deposition and thus complied with the trial court’s discovery order. At that time, there ceased to be a live controversy between Valley Baptist and Gonzalez, who are the only parties to this appeal. See City of W. Univ. Place v. Martin, 132 Tex. 354, 123 S.W.2d 638, 638-39 (1939). Under article II, section 1 of the Texas Constitution, courts have no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions. Speer v. Presbyterian Children’s Home & Serv. Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Tex.1993). Because Valley Baptist’s appeal of the discovery order became moot after the deposition occurred, the court of appeals’ opinion is advisory. Therefore, in accordance with rule 59.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, without hearing oral argument, we grant Valley Baptist’s petition for review, and without reference to the merits, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment and opinion, and dismiss this cause as moot.