P.K. v. S.B.

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-19-00141-CV
___________________________
P.K., Appellant
V.
S.B., Appellee
On Appeal from the 324th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 324-457191-09
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant P.K. attempts to appeal from an associate judge’s order releasing an
amicus attorney from representation and ordering both parties to share the cost of his
fees. Because the order is not final, because no rule or statute authorizes an
interlocutory appeal from this type of order, and because appellant did not respond to
our inquiry letter with an exception that would allow this court to exercise jurisdiction,
we must dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),
43.2(f); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 105.001(e); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,
195 (Tex. 2001); In re J.C., No. 02-18-00276-CV, 2018 WL 6215793, at *1 (Tex. App.–
–Fort Worth Nov. 29, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op. on reh’g).
Per Curiam
Delivered: August 8, 2019
1
To the extent appellant is attempting to appeal a pretrial scheduling order
signed by the presiding judge the same day––indicating that a final trial is set for June
8, 2020––that order likewise is not final and is not an interlocutory order subject to
immediate appeal. See Thomas v. Pugliese, No. 02-17-00407-CV, 2017 WL 6616243, at
*1 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth Dec. 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
2