Bruce Dwain Copeland v. Sergio Lujan ( 2021 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00200-CV
___________________________
BRUCE DWAIN COPELAND, Appellant
V.
SERGIO LUJAN, Appellee
On Appeal from the 348th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 348-319219-20
Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellee Sergio Lujan sued Appellant Bruce Dwain Copeland and others in the
trial court. Several months later, the trial court issued a written notice of intent to
dismiss the case for want of prosecution absent a showing of good cause for retaining
it. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(1). In response to the notice, Lujan filed a verified motion
to retain the case on the docket, and the trial court granted it. Copeland attempts to
appeal the order granting Lujan’s motion. The case remains pending in the trial court.
On July 6, 2021, we notified the parties of our concern that we lack jurisdiction
over this appeal because the trial court’s order does not appear to be a final judgment
or an appealable interlocutory order. We warned that we could dismiss the appeal
absent a response by July 16, 2021, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. We
received no response to our letter.
This court has appellate jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and
from interlocutory orders that the Texas Legislature has specified are immediately
appealable. Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. A final judgment is one that disposes of every
pending claim and party. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205.
The order appealed retains the case on the trial court’s docket. It therefore does
not dispose of every pending claim and party and thus is not a final judgment. See id.
Further, an order granting a motion to retain a case on the trial court’s docket is not
an appealable interlocutory order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014; cf.
2
Blair v. Hutchison, No. 02-21-00132-CV, 2021 WL 2586615, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth June 24, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (holding order granting motion to
reinstate under Rule 165a(3) is neither a final judgment nor an appealable
interlocutory order).
Because the order Copeland attempts to appeal is neither a final judgment nor
an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Delivered: August 19, 2021
3