Christopher Martinez v. Andrea De La Cruz ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed November 17, 2011
    In The
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
    __________
    No. 11-11-00299-CV
    __________
    CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ, Appellant
    V.
    ANDREA DE LA CRUZ, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 161st District Court
    Ector County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. B-114,187
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Upon receiving the docketing statement and a copy of the notice of appeal, it became
    apparent to this court that no final, appealable order had been entered by the trial court because
    appellant’s counsel, Sydney S. Weaver, is attempting to appeal an order disqualifying her.
    Accordingly, the clerk of this court wrote appellant’s counsel on October 20, 2011, informing
    her that it did not appear that this court had jurisdiction because of the absence of an appealable
    order. The clerk’s letter directed appellant’s counsel to respond in writing by November 4, 2011,
    and show grounds to continue this appeal. The clerk’s letter also notified appellant’s counsel
    that the appeal may be dismissed pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42. See Rule 42.3. Appellant’s
    counsel responded to the clerk’s letter by filing a mandamus, but she has not shown grounds to
    continue this appeal.
    Appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and only those interlocutory
    orders deemed appealable by the Texas Legislature. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 195 (Tex. 2001); City of Houston v. Kilburn, 
    849 S.W.2d 810
    , 811 (Tex. 1993); see TEX.
    CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 15.003, 51.014(a), (d) (West Supp. 2011). A judgment is
    final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record.
    
    Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195
    . There is no final judgment on the merits in this cause, and the
    underlying action remains pending. Furthermore, there is no statutory exception that allows
    appellant’s counsel to appeal the trial court’s interlocutory order disqualifying counsel. See
    
    Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195
    ; City of 
    Houston, 849 S.W.2d at 811
    .
    Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
    PER CURIAM
    November 17, 2011
    Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
    McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-11-00299-CV

Filed Date: 11/17/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015