cole-distribution-inc-cole-chemical-distributing-ind-princess ( 2015 )

Opinion issued November 24, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00573-CV
———————————
COLE DISTRIBUTION, INC., COLE CHEMICAL & DISTRIBUTING,
INC., PRINCESS PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, COLE
INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND DONNA F. COLE,
Appellants
V.
VEXAPAK L.L.C., ANTONIO GONZALEZ CORTEX AKA ANTONIO
GONZALEZ JR. AKA ANTONIO D. GONZALEZ AKA ANTONIO D.
GONZALEZ CORTES AND ANTONIO GONZALEZ CARDENAS,
Appellees
On Appeal from the 125th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2008-27646
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants filed notices of appeal attempting to appeal a final judgment
rendered on April 2, 2015. On July 10, 2015, while the appellate case was pending,
the trial court entered an order vacating its final judgment and ordering that a new
judgment would be entered upon consideration of the parties’ motions to modify
the judgment. In August and September 2015, this Court respectively granted
Appellants’ motions to abate and to continue abatement of the appeal pending the
trial court’s entering a final judgment. A new final judgment has not been entered
and, on November 3, 2015, this Court denied Appellants’ most recent request to
continue abatement.
This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and those
interlocutory orders specifically authorized by statute. See Bison Bldg. Materials,
Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); CMH Homes v. Perez, 340
S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,
200 (Tex.2001); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West
2015) (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). Because the trial
court withdrew its final judgment and has not entered a subsequent final judgment,
the Court directed the parties that it might dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction unless the parties filed a response demonstrating the Court’s
jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). The parties failed
to file a response.
2
Accordingly, because the trial court withdrew its final judgment and nothing
in the record indicates that the trial court has since entered a final judgment or an
appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
Gunn v. Tracy, No. 05-11-00161-CV, 2011 WL 1663088, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Dallas May 4, 2011, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction after trial
court withdrew final judgment); Sanchez v. Olivas, No. 08-06-00138-CV, 2006
WL 2480803, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 29, 2006, no pet.) (same). We
dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland.
3