Carlos Gomez Amaya v. Bissell Homecare, Inc.

Opinion

NUMBER 13-16-00261-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

CARLOS GOMEZ AMAYA, Appellant,

v.

BISSELL HOMECARE, INC., Appellee. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Carlos Gomez Amaya, attempted to perfect an appeal from a letter

signed on February 8, 2016 by the Honorable Noe Gonzalez in the 370th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas in cause number F-1532-11-G. Upon review of the documents

before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a

final appealable order. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1,

42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from

the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

A letter from the trial court to counsel is typically not the type of document that

constitutes a judgment, decision, or order. See Goff v. Tuchscherer, 627 S.W.2d 397,

398–99 (Tex. 1982); In re CAS Cos., 422 S.W.3d 871, 874–75 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi

2014, orig. proceeding); Perdue v. Patten Corp., 142 S.W.3d 596, 603 (Tex. App.—Austin

2004, no pet.). However, a letter may constitute an order if: (1) it describes the decision

with certainty as to parties and effect; (2) it requires no further action to memorialize the

ruling; (3) it contains the name and cause number of the case; (4) the court's diction is

affirmative rather than anticipatory of a future ruling; (5) it bears a date; (6) it was signed

by the court; and (7) it was filed with the district clerk. See In re CAS Cos., 422 S.W.3d

at 875; see e.g., In re Newby, 266 S.W.3d 557, 558–59 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig.

proceeding); Barron v. Vanier, 190 S.W.3d 841, 846 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no

pet.); Schaeffer Homes, Inc. v. Esterak, 792 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1990,

no writ). In examining these factors, we focus on whether the trial court intended the

letter to serve as an order. See Gen. Elec. Capital Auto Fin. Leasing Servs., Inc. v.

Stanfield, 71 S.W.3d 351, 355 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). The letter under

consideration in this case fails to meet these requirements.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for

2 want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

Delivered and filed the 21st day of July, 2016.