Briaunna Daniels v. Texas Workforce Commission and Americredit Financial Services, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 23, 2024
• Docket: 02-24-00151-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00151-CV ___________________________

BRIAUNNA DANIELS, Appellant

V.

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 48th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 048-342675-23

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION

In June 2023, Appellant Briaunna Daniels sued Appellees Texas Workforce

Commission and AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. in state court. She alleged that

AmeriCredit had wrongfully terminated her employment with the company in

violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and that the Workforce

Commission had denied her “the rights to her appeal.” AmeriCredit removed the case

to federal court in July 2023.

On April 5, 2024, Daniels filed a notice of appeal in state court stating that she

was doing so because AmeriCredit had fired her in violation of the FMLA and “in

violation of the racism charge” against AmeriCredit that she had not pleaded in her

original petition. The trial-court clerk informed us that the trial-court judge had not

signed an order in this case. We thus wrote to Daniels to notify her that it appeared

that her notice of appeal was premature because there was no final judgment or

appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 27.1(a). We gave the parties until April 30,

2024, to provide us with a signed copy of the order Daniels wanted to appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 44.3, 44.4(a)(2). We warned the parties that if they failed to do so, we

would dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

Daniels responded by filing a “Petition of Appeal” addressing her claims’

merits. But neither she nor any other party has provided us with a signed copy of a

final judgment or appealable order. We thus dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Bothe v. City of Fort Worth, No. 02-22-

2 00490-CV, 2023 WL 1456929, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 2, 2023, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because trial court had not

signed final judgment or appealable order); see also Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,

39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that an appellate court has jurisdiction

over appeals from final judgments and from certain interlocutory orders made

appealable by statute).

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice

Delivered: May 23, 2024