Second Court of Appeals Dismisses Mandamus Petition and Vacates Stay Due to Mootness

In re Corey Martinez, 02-26-00095-CV, February 23, 2026.

On appeal from the 233rd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Second Court of Appeals dismissed a relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and vacated a previously granted stay of trial court proceedings. The court determined that the controversy underlying the requested relief had become moot, thereby depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction to grant the writ.

Relevance to Family Law

In the volatile environment of Texas family law litigation—where temporary orders, discovery deadlines, and possession schedules shift rapidly—the doctrine of mootness is a constant jurisdictional hurdle. This case serves as a critical reminder that a hard-fought stay of trial court proceedings is not a permanent shield. If the underlying dispute is resolved, or if a subsequent trial court order supersedes the one challenged, the appellate court will lose its authority to intervene. For family law practitioners, this underscores the necessity of moving with extreme celerity and monitoring the trial court record for any actions that might inadvertently strip the appellate court of jurisdiction while a mandamus is pending.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Relator Corey Martinez initiated an original proceeding in the Second Court of Appeals seeking mandamus relief from an action taken by the 233rd District Court of Tarrant County. Recognizing the potential for irreparable harm or the need to preserve the status quo, the appellate court issued an order on February 13, 2026, staying the trial court proceedings. However, within ten days of that stay, the legal landscape of the case shifted. The court’s memorandum opinion indicates that the relief Martinez originally sought was no longer available or necessary because the controversy had become moot. While the brief opinion does not detail the specific trial court event that triggered this change, the result was the total evaporation of the court’s jurisdiction to act on the petition.

Issues Decided

Whether an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus must be dismissed, and an associated stay vacated, when the requested relief no longer presents a live controversy for the appellate court to resolve.

Rules Applied

The court applied the fundamental principle of Texas jurisprudence that appellate courts lack jurisdiction to render advisory opinions or decide cases that have become moot. The court’s authority in an original proceeding is governed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8, which requires the court to act on the petition based on the current state of the controversy. Under the mootness doctrine, if a judgment or order from the appellate court cannot have any practical legal effect on a then-existing controversy, the case must be dismissed.

Application

The Second Court of Appeals reviewed the status of the litigation following its initial decision to stay the trial court proceedings. In its analysis, the court determined that the specific relief requested in Martinez’s petition could no longer be granted in a meaningful way. In the context of mandamus practice, once the underlying issue—be it a discovery dispute, a challenge to a temporary order, or a jurisdictional conflict—is resolved by other means or by a change in circumstances, the “case or controversy” requirement of the Texas Constitution is no longer met. Because the court found the relief requested had become moot, it was legally compelled to dismiss the petition without addressing the merits of the relator’s arguments.

Holding

The court held that the relator’s petition for writ of mandamus must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Because the controversy was moot, any opinion on the merits would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion.

The court further held that the stay of trial court proceedings, granted on February 13, 2026, must be vacated. As the stay was an ancillary remedy designed only to protect the court’s jurisdiction during the pendency of the mandamus, it could not survive the dismissal of the underlying proceeding.

Practical Application

This decision highlights a strategic risk for relators in family law cases: the “mootness trap.” Often, a trial court may sign a new order that partially addresses the relator’s complaints or a party may “voluntarily” comply with an order to avoid sanctions, only to find they have accidentally mooted their own appellate remedy. Conversely, for the real party in interest, this case demonstrates that the fastest way to dissolve an appellate stay is to render the relator’s request moot by modifying the challenged order in the trial court (provided the court has jurisdiction to do so). Practitioners must be mindful that the Second Court of Appeals will not hesitate to dismiss a proceeding the moment the controversy ceases to exist, regardless of the time and expense invested in the briefing.

Checklists

Preserving the Mandamus Controversy

• Monitor the Trial Court Record: Ensure no orders are signed that supersede the specific order you are challenging without resolving the underlying legal error.
• Avoid Voluntary Compliance: If the relator complies with the challenged order (e.g., producing documents or paying fees) without a protective order or stay, the court may find the issue moot.
• Draft Narrow Stays: Request stays that are broad enough to protect your client but narrow enough not to paralyze trial court actions that might actually resolve the dispute in your favor.

Strategic Use of Mootness (For the Real Party in Interest)

• Targeted Modifications: Evaluate whether the trial court can sign a modified order that grants the relator’s specific procedural request while maintaining the substantive result, thereby mooting the mandamus.
• Prompt Suggestion of Mootness: Immediately file a “Motion to Dismiss for Mootness” with the Court of Appeals the moment a trial court event renders the relator’s request academic.
• Nonsuit and Refile: In certain contexts, nonsuiting a specific claim or withdrawing a motion in the trial court can be an effective (though sometimes costly) tool to kill a pending mandamus.

Citation

In re Corey Martinez, No. 02-26-00095-CV, 2026 WL [TBD] (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 23, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View the full opinion here.

~~82acbeaf-402f-49fa-b6de-0e03c9ed5af1~~