Carlos Gomez Amaya v. Bissell Homecare, Inc. ( 2016 )

NUMBER 13-16-00261-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
CARLOS GOMEZ AMAYA, Appellant,
v.
BISSELL HOMECARE, INC., Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 370th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Carlos Gomez Amaya, attempted to perfect an appeal from a letter
signed on February 8, 2016 by the Honorable Noe Gonzalez in the 370th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas in cause number F-1532-11-G. Upon review of the documents
before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a
final appealable order. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that
steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1,
42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from
the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.
A letter from the trial court to counsel is typically not the type of document that
constitutes a judgment, decision, or order. See Goff v. Tuchscherer, 627 S.W.2d 397,
398–99 (Tex. 1982); In re CAS Cos., 422 S.W.3d 871, 874–75 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi
2014, orig. proceeding); Perdue v. Patten Corp., 142 S.W.3d 596, 603 (Tex. App.—Austin
2004, no pet.). However, a letter may constitute an order if: (1) it describes the decision
with certainty as to parties and effect; (2) it requires no further action to memorialize the
ruling; (3) it contains the name and cause number of the case; (4) the court's diction is
affirmative rather than anticipatory of a future ruling; (5) it bears a date; (6) it was signed
by the court; and (7) it was filed with the district clerk. See In re CAS Cos., 422 S.W.3d
at 875; see e.g., In re Newby, 266 S.W.3d 557, 558–59 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig.
proceeding); Barron v. Vanier, 190 S.W.3d 841, 846 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no
pet.); Schaeffer Homes, Inc. v. Esterak, 792 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1990,
no writ). In examining these factors, we focus on whether the trial court intended the
letter to serve as an order. See Gen. Elec. Capital Auto Fin. Leasing Servs., Inc. v.
Stanfield, 71 S.W.3d 351, 355 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). The letter under
consideration in this case fails to meet these requirements.
The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to
correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for
2
want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
21st day of July, 2016.
3