Shahin Zaraienh v. Dale & Klein, L.P., Katie Pearson Klein, and Fernando Mancias ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                             NUMBER 13-16-00223-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    SHAHIN ZARAIENH,                                                            Appellant,
    v.
    DALE & KLEIN, L.L.P.,
    KATIE PEARSON KLEIN,
    AND FERNANDO MANCIAS,                                                      Appellees.
    On appeal from the 92nd District Court
    of Hidalgo County, Texas.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
    Appellant, Shahin Zaraienh, filed a notice of appeal of a final judgment rendered
    on March 18, 2016 in an attorney’s fee case involving appellees Dale & Klein, L.P., Katie
    Pearson Klein, and Fernando Mancias. However, on May 31, 2016, the trial court signed
    an order granting a motion for new trial filed by Dale & Klein, L.L.P. On June 8, 2016,
    appellee Katie Pierson Klein filed an opposed motion to dismiss this appeal for want of
    jurisdiction because, in light of the trial court’s new trial order, there is no final order
    subject to appeal in this case. More than ten days have passed and appellant has not
    filed a response to the motion to dismiss.
    In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review
    final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. See Lehmann v.
    Har-Con Corp., 
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 195 (Tex. 2001). An order granting a new trial is an
    unappealable, interlocutory order. Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 
    848 S.W.2d 83
    , 84 (Tex.
    1993) (per curiam). An order granting a new trial is not subject to review either by direct
    appeal from that order, or, as in the instant case, from a final judgment rendered after
    further proceedings in the trial court. Cummins v. Paisan Constr. Co., 
    682 S.W.2d 235
    ,
    235 36 (Tex. 1984) (per curiam).
    The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion to dismiss, is of the
    opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because there is no final appealable
    judgment. Accordingly, we GRANT the opposed motion to dismiss and we DISMISS the
    appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
    PER CURIAM
    Delivered and filed the
    7th day of July, 2016.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-16-00223-CV

Filed Date: 7/7/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/12/2016