Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00279-CV IN RE TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING TEXAS, INC. Original Proceeding 1 AMENDED OPINION PER CURIAM Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 3, 2025 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED AS MOOT On July 16, 2025, we issued an opinion and order which denied relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator timely filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for en banc reconsideration.

We withdraw our opinion and order of July 16, 2025, and we substitute this amended opinion and order in their stead. 2 On May 28, 2024, relator filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s order denying the City of San Antonio’s (“COSA”) plea to the jurisdiction, signed May 8, 2024. Relator’s notice

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2023-CI-25553, pending in the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Rosie Alvarado presiding.

Relator’s motions for rehearing and en banc reconsideration are denied as moot.

04-25-00279-CV

of appeal stated that it was appealing from the same order as the appeal filed by COSA, which was pending in this Court under cause number 04-24-00371-CV. Initially, relator’s appeal was consolidated into cause number 04-24-00371-CV. But, on May 14, 2025, after determining relator was not entitled to an interlocutory appeal, we dismissed relator’s appeal and construed its pleadings as a petition for writ of mandamus.

On July 16, 2025, this Court issued an opinion in 04-24-00371-CV, which reversed the trial court’s denial of COSA’s plea to the jurisdiction, concluding the trial court lacked subject- matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Southside Affordable Development, LLC (“Southside”) in the underlying matter. See City of San Antonio v. Southside Affordable Dev., LLC, No. 04-24-00371-CV, 2025 WL 1943951, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 16, 2025, no pet. h.) (“Because we agree with COSA that Southside lacks standing for the claims it has asserted, we reverse the trial court's denial of COSA’s plea to the jurisdiction.”).

Therefore, the relief sought in relator’s petition for writ of mandamus has already been granted and the trial court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is established as the law of the case.

Accordingly, relator’s mandamus petition is DENIED AS MOOT.

PER CURIAM

-2-