Rule 736 order must be made in a suit filed in a separate, independent, original proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.8(c). The state court lacked jurisdiction to grant the Burciagas’ motion, and thus, the Vacating Order “is without effect.” See Hofrock, 2014 WL 12586366, at *4; see also Travelers, 315 S.W.3d at 863. Accordingly, because the Vacating Order was not final when the federal suit was brought and is void under Texas state law, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar federal court review of it. B Because we hold that that the Vacating Order is void under Texas law, the Foreclosure Order is the final state court judgment. See Courtlandt Corp. v. Trico Serv. Corp., 600 S.W.2d 883, 886 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ refd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>); Carrera v. Marsh, 847 S.W.2d 337, 343 (Tex.
holding appealable a case dismissed in effect by the district courts order holding that courts should order reinstatement under the adea whenever it is an appropriate remedy because reinstatement best serves congress purpose in enacting the adea and an award of front pay is always somewhat speculative holding that trial court did not have jurisdiction to order reinstatement of previously dismissed action and thus reinstatement order was void and of no effect and previous order of dismissal was still in effect holding that although the trial court had dismissed the cause with prejudice it retained jurisdiction to give effect to the settlement order holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered