Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-01-2022

Case Style:

Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino, Ph.D. v. Felipe N. Gomez

Case Number: 04-22-00017-CV

Judge: Rebeca C. Martinez

Court:

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

On appeal from the 224th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Wolfgang P. Hirczy De Mino, PhD

Defendant's Attorney:


San Antonio, TX - Best Medical Malpractice Lawyer Directory




Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.


Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement


Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.


MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge


Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800


Description:

San Antonio, Texas – Medical Malpractice lawyer represented Appellee with filing a petition alleging performance of an abortion in Texas.



On September 20, 2021, appellee filed a petition against Dr. Alan Braid (1) alleging Dr.
Braid performed an abortion in Texas and (2) seeking to have the trial court declare Section
171.208 of the Texas Health and Safety Code (one section of the law colloquially called “SB8”)
declared unconstitutional and “illegal as written and as applied until Roe v. Wade is reversed or
modified.” By subsequent amendments, appellee added numerous parties—including appellant.

On October 11, 2021, appellant filed a plea to the jurisdiction in which appellant argued
appellee “has no standing to assert a viable claim” against Dr. Braid or appellant. The plea asserted
additional bases for a lack of jurisdiction, requiring entry of an involuntary dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
On December 8, 2021, appellee filed a “Notice of Nonsuit without Prejudice as to All
Defendants.” On December 20, 2021, appellee filed an “Amended Notice of Nonsuit, Amending
to Dismiss WITH Prejudice as to All Defendants.” The trial court did not enter an order on either
nonsuit. Appellant subsequently filed a “response,” “objections,” and a “motion to alter the
judgment of dismissal and request for additional post-judgment relief.”
On January 6, 2022, appellant filed his notice of appeal. On January 24, 2022, appellee
filed a motion styled “Gomez Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Instanter, for Lack of Standing and Lack
of Order or Judgment Below to Appeal.” In substance, appellee’s motion argues this appeal should
be dismissed because there is no order or judgment entered below and because appellant lacks
standing. On January 26, 2022, we issued an order authorizing appellant to file a response to
appellee’s motion to dismiss no later than February 7, 2022. On February 3, 2022, appellant filed
a response.
“The plaintiff’s right to take a nonsuit is unqualified and absolute as long as the defendant
has not made a claim for affirmative relief.” Morath v. Lewis, 601 S.W.3d 785, 787 (Tex. 2020)
(emphasis in original) (quoting BHP Petroleum Co. v. Millard, 800 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Tex. 1990)).
A plaintiff may take a nonsuit at any time before it has introduced all its evidence other than
rebuttal evidence. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 162. “If a claim is timely nonsuited, the controversy as to
that claim is extinguished, the merits become moot, and jurisdiction as to the claim is lost.” City
of Dallas v. Albert, 354 S.W.3d 368, 375 (Tex. 2011); see Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315
S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010) (noting nonsuit “renders the merits of the nonsuited case moot”). A
04-22-00017-CV
- 3 -
nonsuit is effective when filed and extinguishes a case or controversy from the moment of filing
or an oral motion made in open court. See Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of
Blackmon ex rel. Shultz, 195 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam).
Here, appellee nonsuited his claims before any defendant entered a general appearance in
the trial court. Thus, appellee’s timely nonsuit extinguished the only claim brought in the trial
court, the trial court lost jurisdiction over appellee’s entire case from the moment of the nonsuit’s
filing, and we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Morath, 601 S.W.3d at 788 (holding
nonsuit mooted entire case, depriving appellate courts of jurisdiction).

Outcome: Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: