Jerry Lavone Lively Jr. v. Michelle Anne Lively ( 2019 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00005-CV
NO. 03-19-00006-CV
Jerry Lavone Lively Jr., Appellant
v.
Michelle Anne Lively, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. C2017-1208C, HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jerry Lavone Lively Jr. filed notices of appeal seeking to challenge the district court’s
interlocutory order granting his wife’s motion to compel discovery and impose sanctions and
an order granting his counsel’s motion to withdraw.1 However, we may not exercise appellate
jurisdiction without a final judgment or otherwise appealable order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code § 51.014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
We requested that Lively file a written response demonstrating this Court’s
jurisdiction over these appeals. His filed response did not demonstrate this Court’s jurisdiction but
questioned the constitutionality of the statute permitting only certain interlocutory appeals. See
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014; Jacintoport Corp. v. Almanza, 987 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Tex.
1
Lively’s new trial counsel filed an appearance in the underlying cause on January 8, 2019.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because
challenge to interlocutory order granting motion for sanctions “must await a final judgment
disposing of all issues between the parties”); Pelt v. State Bd. of Ins., 802 S.W.2d 822, 827 (Tex.
App.—Austin 1990, no writ) (“It has long been held that a discovery order is interlocutory in
nature and therefore non-appealable, in the absence of express statutory authority, until after final
judgment may be rendered on the merits of the primary dispute.”); see also Davis v. Alcatel USA,
Inc., No. 05-07-00060-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 1079, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 15, 2007,
no pet.) (mem. op.) (“An order granting a motion to withdraw as counsel is not an appealable
interlocutory order.”); Mock v. Mock, No. 01-10-00436-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 324, at *2
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 13, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that court lacked
jurisdiction over husband’s interlocutory appeal of order granting his wife’s motion to compel
discovery).
Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.
P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
Gisela D. Triana, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: February 28, 2019
2