In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-20-00162-CV __________________ CROWLEY MARITIME CORPORATION, Appellant V. JUAN VEGA, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 58th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. A-203,194 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Crowley Maritime Corporation filed this interlocutory appeal seeking review of the trial court’s order denying its special appearance. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7). In response, Juan Vega moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Crowley’s appeal from the trial court’s ruling on its special appearance is now moot because he nonsuited Crowley after the trial court denied the special appearance that Crowley filed in response to his lawsuit. Vega concludes that by virtue of the nonsuit, he effectively dismissed Crowley from the suit. With respect to the special appearance, Crowley argues that the fact Vega moved to nonsuit it in the case should be ignored because it appealed from the trial court’s ruling on its special appearance, which he argues stayed all the proceedings in the trial court, effectively freezing them as of the date he appealed to preserve his right to pursue an appeal.

No doubt, Crowley has a statutory right to appeal from the trial court’s ruling on its special appearance. See id. (authorizing interlocutory appeal from a ruling granting or denying a special appearance). Nonetheless, subsection (b) of section 51.014 creates two categories of cases subject to stays. Id. § 51.014(b). The stay that applies to the category of cases that Crowley is in states the appeal stays “the commencement of a trial in the trial court pending resolution of the appeal.” In other words, while Crowley’s appeal had the effect of staying any trial involving the dispute, the appeal it filed did not prevent Vega from amending his pleadings and dismissing Crowley from his suit. Id. Since Vega nonsuited Crowley, we agree with Vega that Crowley’s appeal is now moot. Le v. Kilpatrick, 112 S.W.3d 631, 633-34 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003, no pet.). We will not address a matter that became moot pending our resolution of the appeal, and for that reason we grant Vega’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM Submitted on February 24, 2021 Opinion Delivered February 25, 2021 Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.