King Fuels, Inc. v. Syed R. Enterprises, Inc., Syed Azeemuddin and Ayesha Tabassum ( 2016 )

Opinion issued July 12, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00971-CV
———————————
KING FUELS, INC., Appellant
V.
SYED R. ENTERPRISES, INC., SYED AZEEMUDDIN AND AYESHA
TABASSUM, Appellees
On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 2
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1062261
MEMORANDUM OPINION
King Fuels, Inc. appeals from the trial court’s grant of a motion to transfer
venue.
Appeals may be taken from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders can be appealed only when
expressly authorized by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d
352, 352 (Tex. 2001). Here, the record reveals that no final judgment has been
entered. The trial court’s grant of King Fuel’s motion to transfer venue does not
dispose of King Fuel’s claims. Accordingly, the order transferring venue is
interlocutory.
On June 14, 2016, the Court notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating this
court’s jurisdiction on or before June 24, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
King Fuels filed a response, arguing the trial court’s ruling was reviewable by
mandamus. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 15.0642 (Vernon 2002). This
does not establish a right to an interlocutory appeal.1 Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale.
1
King Fuels has also filed a petition for writ of mandamus under a separate cause
number. We have reviewed and ruled on that cause.
2