Charlotte Carroll v. CC Maple, LLC ( 2024 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 22, 2024
In the
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-01357-CV
CHARLOTTE CARROLL, Appellant
V.
CC MAPLE, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-05637-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Reichek, Carlyle, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Carlyle
Charlotte Carroll sued CC Maple, LLC alleging breach of a contract related
to COVID-19. CC Maple filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment and a
plea to the jurisdiction, both of which were granted. Liberally construed and re-
organized, Carroll’s appellate brief raises three types of complaints concerning the
trial court’s rulings: (1) dismissal after the trial court determined it lacked
jurisdiction; (2) denial of due process and due course of law; and (3) judicial
impropriety. CC Maple did not file a response. We affirm in this memorandum
opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
The trial court granted CC Maple’s plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence
motion for summary judgment. Carroll, who appears pro se, argues that “In making
a ruling in a setting which [the trial court judge] stated she had no jurisdiction, she
violated due process.” Carroll also cites the Texas Constitution and argues the trial
court denied her due process and due course of law when it dismissed her claims
despite lacking jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Courts, however, “always have jurisdiction to determine their own
jurisdiction.” Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 146 n.14 (Tex.
2012). “Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Fin.
Comm’n of Tex. v. Norwood, 418 S.W.3d 566, 578 (Tex. 2013). Thus, trial courts
must determine whether they have the constitutional or statutory authority to decide
a case at the earliest opportunity. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133
S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). Contrary to Carroll’s contention, trial courts must
dismiss cases when they lack jurisdiction. See Just Energy Texas I Corp. v. Texas
Workforce Comm’n, 472 S.W.3d 437, 444 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.). Here,
the trial court dismissed Carroll’s case after determining it lacked jurisdiction and
Carroll did not challenge the propriety of the trial court’s determination on appeal.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (f) & (i). Thus, we overrule Carroll’s first reorganized
issue.1
1
We acknowledge that the reasons supporting the entry of summary judgment despite the
trial court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction are not clear from the record. Liberally construing
–2–
In her second reorganized issue, Carroll argues the trial court deprived her of
due process and due course of law when it dismissed her case based on its conclusion
that it lacked jurisdiction. We disagree because courts must dismiss cases when they
lack jurisdiction. See Just Energy Texas I Corp., 472 S.W.3d at 444. Without
citations to authorities and facts, we decline to hold that courts dismissing cases
based on the absence of jurisdiction violate due process or due course of law
protections when they do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (g) & (i). We overrule Carroll’s
second reorganized issue.
Finally, Carroll (1) challenges the trial court’s conduct as improperly partial
and prejudiced and (2) accuses the trial court of participating in ex parte
communications by speaking about her with opposing counsel “in a negative
manner.” A thorough review of Carroll’s brief, however, reveals no citation to any
evidence in the record that supports either of Carroll’s complaints.2 See TEX. R. APP.
P. 38.1(g). Furthermore, our review of the record reveals no evidence of improperly
partial or prejudicial statements and no evidence of ex parte communications. Thus,
we overrule Carroll’s reorganized third issue.
* * *
Carroll’s briefs to attack the propriety of summary judgment under these facts, we conclude it was
harmless based on the trial court’s unchallenged conclusion on appeal that it lacked jurisdiction.
2
While we acknowledge that Carroll’s appellate brief refers to a “mailed audio file,” this
file is neither part of the clerk’s record nor accessible for our review. “Documents attached to
briefs that are not part of the clerk’s or reporter’s records are not part of the appellate record and
may not be considered by the reviewing court.” In re Estate of Bendtsen, 230 S.W.3d 823, 830
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied).
–3–
Having overruled Carroll’s issues on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
/Cory L. Carlyle//
221357f.p05
CORY L. CARLYLE
JUSTICE
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHARLOTTE CARROLL, On Appeal from the County Court at
Appellant Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-05637-
No. 05-22-01357-CV V. C.
Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.
CC MAPLE, LLC, Appellee Justices Reichek and Miskel
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee CC MAPLE, LLC recover its costs of this
appeal from appellant CHARLOTTE CARROLL.
Judgment entered this 22nd day of February, 2024.
–5–