Hui Xi v. Songping Lu

Opinion issued March 19, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-25-00849-CV
———————————
HUI XI, Appellant
V.
SONGPING LU, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1256916

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellee Songping Lu sued appellant Hui Xi in the justice court seeking

eviction. The justice court granted judgment for appellee. Appellant sought de

novo review in the county court.
On September 18, 2025, appellee non-suited the eviction case. The county

court signed the non-suit the same day, dismissing appellee’s claim.

Appellant noticed this appeal on October 10, 2025.

Generally, a trial court’s granting of a non-suit moots the dispute and denies

this Court jurisdiction unless other claims for relief remain pending. See Univ. of

Texas Med. Branch at Galveston v. Est. of Blackmon ex rel. Shultz, 195 S.W.3d 98,

100 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam).

While appellant’s answer and supplemental answer appear to contain some

affirmative requests for relief,1 counterclaims are not permitted in cases of eviction

and must be brought in a separate lawsuit. See, e.g., Berry v. Brickell, No.

03‑23‑00756‑CV, 2025 WL 2773173, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 30, 2025, no

pet.) (citing TEX. R. CIV . P. 510.3(e)). So, non-suiting the forcible detainer claim

mooted the entire controversy. See Morath v. Lewis, 601 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Tex.

2020) (internal citation omitted) (“Because the appellee’s non-suit moots his case

by extinguishing a case or controversy, the non-suit is not merely the end of the

case. It is the end of the Court’s power to decide the case, assuming there are no

claims for relief against the non-suiting party.”) We notified appellant that the

1
Appellant filed an answer and supplemental answer requesting suspension of rent
payments, damages for breach of the lease, a temporary occupation fee, temporary
housing transitional costs, transportation costs, litigation-related fees, and emotional
distress damages.
2
appeal was subject to dismissal, but appellant failed to provide an adequate

response.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss any

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.

3