DocketNumber： 13-10-00158-CV
Filed Date： 2/3/2011
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/16/2015
|
|
NUMBER 13-10-00158-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
ESTEBAN HURTADO, ET AL., Appellants,
v.
MARIA DE JESUS GAMEZ, ET AL., Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 398th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellants, Esteban Hurtado, Gerardo Hurtado, San Juanita Davila, and Cristela Hurtado, individually and as next friend of Juan Luis Huerta III, Misael Alejandro Huerta, and Britney Anaid Huerta, and Cristela Hurtado as administratrix of the estate of Alma Rosa Huerta, attempted to perfect an appeal from orders signed on March 29, 2010, denying their plea in abatement and granting a motion to strike their plea in intervention.
This cause is before the Court on the clerk’s record, appellants’ brief, and various motions as further described herein.
On August 2, 2010, appellees, Maria De Jesus Gamez, individually and as heir of Juan Jose Gamez, deceased, and as next friend of Juan Jose Gamez, Jr., and Carlissa Monique Gamez (“Gamez”) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction on grounds there is no final or appealable judgment. That same day, these appellees also filed a motion to stay briefing pending ruling on their motion to dismiss the appeal.
On August 10, 2010, appellee, Adrian Garcia d/b/a Magnum Force Security (“Magnum”) also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that neither order subject to appeal is a final judgment, nor are appeals from these orders authorized by statute. That same day, this appellee further filed a motion to stay briefing pending ruling on his motion to dismiss the appeal. On August 13, 2010, Magnum also filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief.
On August 16, 2010, appellee, First Mercury Insurance Company (incorrectly named as “First Mercury Insurance Services, Inc.) filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that no final judgment had been rendered and that it was not a party in the proceedings before the trial court. That same day, this appellee also filed a motion to stay briefing pending a ruling on its motion to dismiss the appeal.
On August 19, 2010, appellants filed responses to the Gamez motion to dismiss and motion to stay briefing and Magnum’s motion to dismiss and stay briefing.
Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears that the orders from which this appeal was taken were not final, appealable orders. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When a trial court strikes a plea in intervention, the order generally cannot be appealed until after the trial court renders a final judgment in the case. Metromedia Long Distance, Inc. v. Hughes, 810 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1991, writ denied). This case fails to present any circumstance which would require the application of an exception to this rule.
The Court, having considered the clerk’s record, appellant’s brief, the motions and responses, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, we GRANT the three motions to dismiss filed by appellees. We DISMISS AS MOOT the three motions to stay briefing filed by and we likewise DISMISS AS MOOT the motion for extension of time to file a brief filed by First Mercury Insurance Company. The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 3rd
day of February, 2011.