Isabelle Edwards v. Panda Express Inc. ( 2019 )

DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 27, 2019
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00715-CV
ISABELLE EDWARDS, Appellant
V.
PANDA EXPRESS INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 95th District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18346
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Reichek
Isabelle Edwards appeals the trial court’s June 6, 2019 order granting defendant’s motion
to compel responses to disclosure and discovery requests. After the clerk’s record was filed, we
notified the parties we had concerns regarding our jurisdiction. We asked for jurisdictional letter
briefs, and cautioned appellant that the failure to respond could result in our dismissing the case.
To date, no responses have been filed.
A necessary prerequisite to invoking the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is that, in the
absence of a statute to the contrary, the appeal must be from a final, appealable judgment. See
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.
2001). Discovery orders are interlocutory in nature and therefore not appealable until after a final
judgment is entered. See 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.”); Liu v. Stull, No. 05-16-00024-CV, 2016 WL 1213382, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 29, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding court lacked jurisdiction
over interlocutory appeal of discovery granting motion to compel discovery); see also In re Nat’l
Lloyds Ins. Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (discovery order
is reviewable for abuse of discretion for which mandamus is appropriate remedy).
Edwards is challenging the trial court’s order on a discovery matter. However, she filed a
notice of appeal, not a petition for writ of mandamus. Because the discovery order Edwards
challenges is not an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Amanda L. Reichek/
AMANDA L. REICHEK
JUSTICE
190715F.P05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ISABELLE EDWARDS, Appellant On Appeal from the 95th District Court,
Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-19-00715-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18346.
Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek,
PANDA EXPRESS INC., Appellee Justices Schenck and Osborne participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered August 27, 2019
–3–