645 S.W.3d 773
Tex.2022Background:
- Warren Chen (CEO of Taiwanese DynaColor) and DynaColor were sued in Texas; they filed special appearances contesting personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the special appearances; Chen filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal to the court of appeals and sought a stay of trial-court proceedings.
- While that interlocutory appeal was pending, the trial court rendered a final judgment against Chen; Chen did not file a new notice of appeal from the final judgment.
- Razberi moved to dismiss the interlocutory appeal as procedurally moot because the interlocutory order had merged into the final judgment; the court of appeals dismissed the appeal.
- The Texas Supreme Court held Rule 27.3 requires the court of appeals to treat a pending interlocutory appeal as an appeal from a subsequent final judgment when the interlocutory order has been modified/vacated or merged, so no second notice was required to preserve the already-pending issues.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for merits consideration of the personal-jurisdiction challenge, limiting Rule 27.3’s effect to issues already presented in the pending appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27.3 apply when an interlocutory order merges into a later final judgment? | Rule 27.3 applies; merger "implicitly modified" the interlocutory order and preserves the pending appeal. | Rule 27.3 does not apply because merger is neither a modification nor a vacatur. | Rule 27.3 applies; merger qualifies as a modification for the rule's purpose (Roccaforte controlling). |
| Is a second notice of appeal from the final judgment required to preserve issues already raised in the pending interlocutory appeal? | No; the existing perfected appeal continues and is treated as from the final judgment for those issues. | Yes; absent a new notice, the interlocutory appeal is procedurally moot and the issue must be raised in a new appeal. | No second notice required to preserve issues already on appeal; the court of appeals must treat the pending appeal as from the final judgment (limited to issues already raised). |
| Did rendition of a final judgment render the interlocutory special-appearance appeal moot? | No; the appeal remained live and not procedurally moot under Rule 27.3. | Yes; final judgment moots the interlocutory appeal and required an appeal from the final judgment. | The interlocutory appeal was not procedurally moot; dismissal was erroneous. |
| What is the scope of Rule 27.3’s effect after merger? | It preserves only the issues already raised in the pending appeal. | Rule 27.3 cannot be used to expand or automatically perfect new issues from the final judgment. | Rule 27.3 preserves only the previously appealed issues; new issues from the final judgment require a separate notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. 2011) (Rule 27.3 permits treating an interlocutory appeal as from a final judgment after merger)
- Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997) (appellate rules construed reasonably and liberally to preserve appeals)
- ERCOT, Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. 2021) (discussed Rule 27.3 and mootness; different procedural posture but consistent that Rule 27.3 preserves live issues when applicable)
- Ryland Enterprises, Inc. v. Weatherspoon, 355 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. 2011) (courts should avoid dismissing appeals for procedural defects when rules allow preservation)