Bianca Fox v. Cypress at Stone Oak
This text of Bianca Fox v. Cypress at Stone Oak (Bianca Fox v. Cypress at Stone Oak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-26-00120-CV
Bianca FOX, Appellant
v.
CYPRESS at Stone Oak, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023-CV-01033 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2026
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On February 12, 2026, appellant Bianca Fox, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal
purporting to appeal a turnover order signed on January 30, 2026. The clerk’s record contains no
turnover order signed on January 30, 2026. Instead, the clerk’s record contains two interlocutory
orders signed on January 30, 2026, those being: (1) an order denying Fox’s motion for protection,
and (2) an order requiring Fox to comply with a subpoena. It appears that Fox intends to appeal
from these interlocutory orders. See Pelt v. State Bd. Of Ins., 802 S.W.2d 822, 826 (Tex. App.— 04-26-00120-CV
Austin 1990, no writ) (holding that an order denying a motion to quash subpoena is not
appealable); see also RWLS L.L.C. v. Gray Wireline Service, Inc., 359 S.W.3d 927, 928 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (per curiam, sub. op. on reh’g) (holding that an
order denying stay and compelling compliance with subpoena is not appealable).
“Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only to
review final judgments.” McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC, 539 S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex.
2018). Accordingly, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing by March 18, 2026, why
this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has filed no response.
Because neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order that may afford an authorized
interlocutory appeal has been signed in the underlying cause, this appeal is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a) (appellate court may dismiss an appeal for lack of
jurisdiction).
1 All pending motions are denied as moot.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bianca Fox v. Cypress at Stone Oak, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bianca-fox-v-cypress-at-stone-oak-txctapp4-2026.