Tzu-Chen Lin v. Chuan-Ben Fu ( 2022 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00540-CV
Tzu-Chen Lin, Appellant
v.
Chuan-Ben Fu, Appellee
FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-21-002853, THE HONORABLE JAN SOIFER, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Tzu-Chen Lin seeks to appeal the trial court’s denial of her plea to the
jurisdiction, which she filed in response to appellee Chuan-Ben Fu’s suit for divorce.
This Court’s appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals of final judgments and
certain interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§§ 51.012, .014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). There is no
statutory authority generally permitting an interlocutory appeal from a trial court order denying
a plea to the jurisdiction. Great Sw. Reg’l Ctr., LLC v. ACSWD, LP, No. 03-17-000359-CV,
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 8156, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 25, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Although Section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code expressly authorizes an
interlocutory appeal from a trial court order that “grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a
governmental unit,” nothing in the record suggests that appellant is a “governmental unit.” See
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(8); HWY 3 MHP, LLC v. Electric Reliability Council
of Tex., 462 S.W.3d 204, 212 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015, no pet.) (concluding that ERCOT is not
“governmental unit” and dismissing interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction).
On September 27, 2022, the Clerk of this Court advised appellant that it appears
this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over this matter because the clerk’s record does not contain
a final judgment or appealable order. The Clerk requested that appellant file a response by
October 21, 2022, demonstrating how we may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. To date,
no response has been filed.
Because no final judgment has been signed and because the trial court’s denial of
appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction is a non-appealable interlocutory order, we do not have
jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: November 18, 2022
2