Arthur R. Holloway, Jr. v. Rhonda Hackett, Jahari Bean, Roland Fierre, Jamari Holloway, Terrance Simmons, Frank Stengel, F/N/U Dabarus, F/N/U Tadonna ( 2024 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-24-00321-CV
Arthur R. HOLLOWAY, Jr.,
Appellant
v.
Rhonda HACKETT, Jahari Bean, Roland Fierre, Jamari Holloway, Terrance Simmons, Frank
Stengel, F/N/U Dabarus, F/N/U Tadonna,
Appellees
From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23-09-00164-CVK
Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 17, 2024
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On March 15, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying
his petition to take pre-suit depositions under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202. “Presuit
deposition orders are appealable only if sought from someone against whom suit is not anticipated;
when sought from an anticipated defendant . . . such orders have been considered ancillary to the
subsequent suit, and thus neither final nor appealable.” In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex.
2008).
04-24-00321-CV
Appellant’s trial court petition identified eight individuals he wished to depose. However,
his petition did not specify whether he intended to file suit against some, all, or none of those
individuals. See id.; see also In re Mora, No. 04-13-00036-CV, 2013 WL 988183, at *1 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio Mar. 13, 2013, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Accordingly, on June 5,
2024, we ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court that he did not anticipate filing
suit against the eight individuals identified in his petition. Our order noted that if appellant failed
to file the required written proof, we would dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See In re
Mora, 2013 WL 988183, at *1.
On July 8, 2024, appellant filed a written response to our order. Appellant’s response stated
that he no longer wished to pursue the appeal because he intended to file suit against “certain
appellees.” Because appellant’s response indicated that he sought pre-suit depositions from at least
one “anticipated defendant,” the challenged order is “neither final nor appealable.” In re Jorden,
249 S.W.3d at 419. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See In re Mora, 2013
WL 988183, at *1.
PER CURIAM
-2-