Full Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 25, 2026 In The Fifteenth Court of Appeals NO. 15-26-00090-CV UNIQUE GREEN, Appellant V. TEXAS FUNERAL SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellee On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2025-50731 MEMORANDUM OPINION Unique Green sued Maria Haynes, the executive director of the Texas Funeral Service Commission, alleging that the Commission unlawfully suspended the license of her establishment, A Community Funeral Home (ACFH). This Court recently affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing of Green’s separate yet almost identical suit against the Commission (Green I).1 Because the same analysis applies 1 Green v. Tex. Funeral Serv. Comm’n, 2026 WL 392055, at *1 (Tex. App.—15th Dist., Feb. 12, 2026, no pet.) [Green I]. equally here, we affirm. 2 BACKGROUND 3 A funeral establishment may not operate without a license from the Commission.4 A license is not required to own a funeral home, but the business establishment must have its own license.5 An establishment license is “issued to the establishment’s owner,” 6 and must be renewed annually. 7 Green opened ACFH in 2016 with an establishment license from the Commission.8 In November 2024, the Commission informed Green that the license was delinquent. 9 She paid the required fee but never completed the statutorily required background check.10 On November 22, 2024, Green submitted a “Business Purchase Agreement” and the Commission’s change of ownership form reflecting that she had transferred ownership of ACFH to Paulette King as of that date. 11 King 2 Cf. George Fleming & Fleming & Assocs. v. Wilson, 694 S.W.3d 186, 193 (Tex. 2024) (It is a “basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike.”). 3 Haynes informs us that the trial court took judicial notice of the record in Green I but, since there is no reporter’s record of that hearing, asks us to do the same. Appellate courts may take judicial notice of, relevant here, “facts that could have been properly judicially noticed by the trial judge.” Huffman Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Colter, 2026 WL 1500963, at *5 (Tex. May 29, 2026) (citing Tafel v. State, 536 S.W.3d 517, 523 (Tex. 2017)). A trial court may properly take judicial notice of the records in another case if supplied with the necessary information. Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012). We grant Haynes’ request and take judicial notice of the Green I record. 4 TEX. OCC. CODE § 651.351(a). 5 Id. § 651.351(b). 6 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 203.9(a)(3) (Tex. Funeral Servs. Commission, License of Funeral Establishments and Commercial Embalming Establishments). 7 Id. § 203.9(b)(1) (“The renewal period of a license is 12 months.”). 8 Green I, 2026 WL 392055, at *1. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. 2 likewise submitted change of ownership paperwork to the Commission.12 The Commission revoked ACFH’s license on the basis that the change of ownership paperwork contained false information. 13 Green filed a pro se lawsuit against the Commission 14 in the 187th District Court of Harris County. Liberally construed, her pleadings alleged that the Commission violated the Texas Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act by revoking ACFH’s license and denying the application for a new license.15 The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction alleging that Green lacked standing because she had no ownership interest in ACFH. On June 16, 2025, the trial court sustained the plea, and Green appealed. On July 22, 2025—while Green I was still pending in this Court—Green filed a new lawsuit in the 11th District Court of Harris County against the Commission’s new executive director, Maria Haynes, to restrain alleged ultra vires acts. Her pleadings allege the same acts that were at issue in Green I plus unspecified “new and ongoing ultra vires conduct.” Haynes filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a Rule 91a motion to dismiss. She argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Green does not have standing and, in the Rule 91a motion, that Green failed to allege a valid ultra vires claim. On October 28, 2025, the trial court granted both motions and dismissed the case with prejudice. We subsequently affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing in Green I.16 12 Id. 13 Id.; see 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 203.9(d) (authorizing Commission to refuse to renew license or revoke existing license “if it determines that the license application or the change of ownership affidavit contains materially false information”). 14 She also sued the Commission’s executive director and a Commission employee, but neither answered. Green I, 2026 WL 392055, at *2. 15 Id. 16 Id. at *1. 3 DISCUSSION We review a trial court’s ruling on plea to the jurisdiction de novo. 17 When a jurisdictional plea challenges the sufficiency of the pleadings, our task is to “determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction to hear the cause.”18 We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the pleader and look to their intent. 19 But we are not limited to the pleadings; we may also considered evidence and must do so when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised.20 “Without standing, a court lacks jurisdiction to resolve the asserted claims.”21 Standing requires that the plaintiff demonstrate that: “(1) it suffered a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct; and (3) a favorable decision is likely to redress the injury.” 22 An injury is “‘particularized’ for standing purposes if it ‘affect[s] the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.’”23 We concluded in Green I that Green lacked a particularized injury because she was no longer the owner of ACFH.24 Here, Green argues here that it is enough that she held the license at the time of the revocation. We rejected this precise argument in Green I, explaining that because she was no longer the owner of ACFH, 17 Herrera v. Mata, 702 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Tex. 2024). 18 Id. 19 Webster v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 704 S.W.3d 478, 498 (Tex. 2024). 20 Pepper Lawson Horizon Int’l Grp. v. Tex. S. Univ., 669 S.W.3d 205, 211 (Tex. 2023). 21 425 Soledad, Ltd. v. CRVI Riverwalk Hosp., 709 S.W.3d 551, 557 (Tex. 2024). 22 McLane Champions, LLC v. Houston Baseball Partners LLC, 671 S.W.3d 907, 912–13 (Tex. 2023). 23 Data Foundry, Inc. v. City of Austin, 620 S.W.3d 692, 696 (Tex. 2021) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339 (2016)). 24 2026 WL 392055, at *2. 4 “she is not entitled to hold a license thereafter, and lacks standing because the revocation of ACFH’s license does not affect her in a personal and individual way.” 25 Green does not give us any other basis to conclude that the revocation of ACFH’s license affects her personally.26 As this is sufficient to uphold the trial court’s judgment, we do not consider Haynes’s Rule 91a motion. CONCLUSION We affirm the dismissal of Green’s suit for lack of standing. 27 /s/ Scott A. Brister Scott A. Brister Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris. 25 Id. 26 Green alleged in her response to the plea to the jurisdiction that she “temporarily sold [ACFH] but has since resumed ownership and control” but does not make that argument on appeal. 27 We deny Haynes’ motion to dismiss based on mootness. 5