Background and Procedural Posture

This appeal arose from Business Court Division 3B in Travis County, where Nicholas Kreines, David P. Ryan, and Liberty Mineral Partners LLC were litigating against ES3 Minerals, LLC in a dispute that originated as Trial Court Cause No. 24-BC03B-0005. The appellants filed an interlocutory appeal to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which was docketed as No. 15-26-00069-CV.

The Abatement and Subsequent Dismissal

On May 22, 2026, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals granted the appellants' unopposed motion to abate the appeal pending issuance of a final judgment in the trial court. The court's brief memorandum opinion states:

On May 22, 2026, this Court granted appellants' unopposed motion to abate this appeal pending issuance of a final judgment in the trial court.

After the trial court issued a final judgment, the appellants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss on July 21, 2026, on the ground that the interlocutory appeal had become moot. The Fifteenth Court of Appeals granted the motion, stating:

We lift the abatement and reinstate the appeal on the active docket. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

Significance for Texas Business Court Practice

This memorandum opinion illustrates a procedural dynamic in Texas Business Court appellate practice: interlocutory appeals can be rendered moot when the trial court proceeds to final judgment while the appeal is pending. The unopposed nature of both the abatement motion and the dismissal motion indicates that neither party saw value in continuing the interlocutory appeal once final judgment issued.

For practitioners, this case demonstrates that interlocutory appeals from the Business Court remain subject to traditional mootness principles. When trial court proceedings are moving toward final resolution, parties must evaluate whether pursuing or maintaining an interlocutory appeal serves any continuing purpose, or whether resources are better directed toward the final judgment and any subsequent appeal from that ruling.