Mario Trevino Construction, LLC v. Dallas Greg Gutierrez and Victoria Alexis Villalobos ( 2022 )

NUMBER 13-22-00371-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
MARIO TREVINO CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Appellant,
v.
DALLAS GREG GUTIERREZ AND
VICTORIA ALEXIS VILLALOBOS, Appellees.
On appeal from the 430th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
On August 10, 2022, appellant Mario Trevino Construction, LLC filed a notice of
appeal regarding “an order abating litigation” signed on April 11, 2022. In its notice of
appeal, appellant asserted that it filed a motion to reconsider the trial court’s order on June
1, 2022, and the trial court denied that motion on July 11, 2022. In support of its notice of
appeal, appellant provided the July 11, 2022 order denying reconsideration, which states,
in relevant part, that appellant and appellees Dallas Greg Gutierrez and Victoria Alexis
Villalobos have been ordered to arbitrate their claims pursuant to a contract.
On August 11, 2022, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared
appellant was attempting to appeal an order which is not subject to appeal. The Clerk
requested correction of this defect, if possible, and advised appellant that the appeal
would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days. See TEX. R. APP. P.
37.1, 42.3(a). Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s notice. Subsequently, the Clerk
advised appellant that the notice of appeal was late, the notice of appeal was defective,
and appellant was delinquent in paying his fees for the appeal. Appellant did not respond
to any of these notices.
As an appellate court, we have the obligation to examine our jurisdiction and may
do so sua sponte. See Pike v. Tex. EMC Mgmt., LLC, 610 S.W.3d 763, 774 (Tex. 2020);
M.O. Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam). Generally,
appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d
191, 195 (Tex. 2001). “Exceptions to this general rule are provided by statutes that
specifically authorize interlocutory appeals of particular orders.” City of Watauga v.
Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.
§ 51.014 (listing several interlocutory orders that may be appealed). In this regard, an
order compelling arbitration may be reviewed after rendition of a final judgment. See
Chambers v. O’Quinn, 242 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (citing Green Tree Fin.
Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 89 (2000)); see also Davis v. Boyd, No. 05-21-
00154-CV, 2022 WL 4354174, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 20, 2022, no pet. h.).
2
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the
applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we
dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
CLARISSA SILVA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
6th day of October, 2022.
3