PlainsCapital Bank and Albert Chapa v. Andy Hernandez ( 2019 )

NUMBER 13-19-00228-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
PLAINSCAPITAL BANK AND ALBERT CHAPA, Appellants,
v.
ANDY HERNANDEZ, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 229th District Court
Of Starr County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Appellants PlainsCapital Bank and Albert Chapa attempted to perfect an appeal
from an April 17, 2019 order denying their motion to compel arbitration in cause number
DC-17-712 in the 229th District Court of Starr County, Texas. On May 17, 2019, the
Clerk of this Court notified appellants that it did not appear that we had jurisdiction over
the appeal and requested correction of this defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 37.1, 42.3. The Clerk further notified appellants that the appeal would be dismissed
if the defect was not corrected after the expiration of ten days from receipt of the Court’s
notice. Appellants have not replied to the Court’s notice.
The State of Texas is divided into fourteen court of appeals districts with a court of
appeals in each district. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(a). “Each court of appeals
has appellate jurisdiction of all civil cases within its district of which the district courts or
county courts have jurisdiction when the amount in controversy or the judgment rendered
exceeds $250, exclusive of interest and costs.” Id. § 22.220(a); see TEX. CONST. art. V,
§ 6. In this case, the order appealed from was not from a district or county court in our
court of appeals district. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(n). Accordingly, we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal. See id. § 22.220(a); Kim v. State, 181 S.W.3d 448, 449
(Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the
opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c). All pending
motions, if any, are likewise dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
18th day of July, 2019.
2