Jal B. Guzder v. Haynes and Boone, LLP, Sarah Teachout, and Paul Searles ( 2015 )

Opinion issued May 12, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00929-CV
———————————
JAL B. GUZDER, Appellant
V.
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP, SARAH TEACHOUT, AND
PAUL SEARLES, Appellees
On Appeal from the 113th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2013-31165
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jal B. Guzder, has filed an unopposed motion to “consolidate”
this appeal with the appeal in cause number 01-13-00985-CV. On September 23,
2013, the trial court, in cause number 2013-31165, dismissed appellant’s claims
against appellees, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Sarah Teachout, and Paul Searles. The
order states that it is interlocutory. On October 11, 2013, the trial court granted
appellees’ motion to sever “all claims and causes of action” brought by Guzder
into separate trial court cause number 2013-31165-A, styled as Jal B. Guzder v.
Haynes and Boone, LLP, Sarah Teachout, and Paul Searles, making final its
interlocutory dismissal. See Crowson v. Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex.
1995).
On October 13, 2013, appellant filed a notice of appeal in “Cause Number
2013-31165,” which was assigned appellate cause number 01-13-00929-CV. On
November 13, 2013, appellant filed a “First Amended Notice of Appeal” from the
severed case, “Cause Number 2013-31165-A,” which was assigned a new
appellate cause number, 01-13-00985-CV.
The Court grants appellant’s motion, directs the Clerk of the Court to move
the records filed in appellate cause number 01-13-00929-CV into appellate cause
number 01-13-00985-CV and orders that the appeal proceed under appellate cause
number 01-13-00985-CV. We dismiss appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s
interlocutory order in appellate cause number 01-13-00929-CV. See, e.g., Beames
v. Hooks, No. 01-14-00105-CV, 2014 WL 1481273, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Apr. 15, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); BBG Group, L.L.C. v. MBI Global,
L.L.C., No. 14-12-00247-CV, 2012 WL 3241557, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] Aug. 9, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.).
2
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. We dismiss all other pending motions
as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Lloyd.
3