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

     

     

                                                M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

     

    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.

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-11-00299-CV

Filed Date: 11/17/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015