DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 11, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00018-CV HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant V. AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-13917 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Appellant appeals from the trial court’s December 15, 2022 interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss appellee’s third-party claims against it for failure to timely file a certificate of merit. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 150.002(f) (order denying or granting motion to dismiss for failure to file certificate of merit is subject to interlocutory appeal). Subsequently, appellee filed a motion in the trial court requesting additional time to file a certificate of merit, and appellant filed a supplemental motion to dismiss for lack of a timely filed certificate of merit. On April 7, 2023, the trial court signed an order denying appellee’s motion for additional time to file a certificate of merit and granting appellant’s supplemental motion to dismiss. Appellee has appealed this order.1 Because it appeared the trial court’s April 7th order mooted this appeal, we directed appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (case becomes moot if controversy ceases to exist between parties at any stage of legal proceedings); Isola v. Polk, No. 05-21-00547-CV, 2022 WL 1438946, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 6, 2022, no pet.) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction over moot controversies). In response, appellant argues this appeal is moot only if this Court affirms the April 7th order that is the subject of the appeal filed by appellee. We disagree. The April 7th order superseded the December 15th order which is the subject of this appeal. See In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 256, 260 (Tex. 2014) (later judgment supersedes a prior one). Thus, regardless of how this Court resolves appellee’s appeal of the trial court’s April 7th order, the appeal of the December 15th order is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

/Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE 230018F.P05

Appellee’s interlocutory appeal is docketed as appellate cause number 05-23-00400-CV.

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC., On Appeal from the 160th Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-13917.

No. 05-23-00018-CV V. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Pedersen, AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, III participating.

INC., Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that the parties’ bear their own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered May 11, 2023

–3–