Channelview MHP, LLC v. Gracie Hernandez, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Mario Martinez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 9, 2025
• Docket: 01-24-00931-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued January 9, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00931-CV ——————————— CHANNELVIEW MHP, LLC, Appellant V. GRACIE HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARIO MARTINEZ, Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2023-29201

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Channelview MHP, LLC, filed a notice of appeal from the trial

court’s October 24, 2024 order denying appellant’s “Amended Traditional Motion

for Summary Judgment.” On December 12, 2024, appellee, Gracie Hernandez,

individually and as representative of the Estate of Mario Martinez, filed a “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,” arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction over

appellant’s appeal because the order being appealed is an interlocutory order.

We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments

and specific interlocutory orders that the Legislature has designated as appealable

orders. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see also

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014. An order denying summary judgment

is not a final judgment and therefore is generally not appealable unless authorized

by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014; see also Baylor Coll.

of Med. v. Tate, 7 S.W.3d 467, 469 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).

While section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes

appeals from interlocutory orders denying summary judgment in certain

circumstances, none of those circumstances are present in this case. See TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(5), (6), (17).

Because appellant has appealed from an interlocutory trial court order and has

not identified a statute—and we have found none—that would authorize an

interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s October 24, 2024 order, we conclude that

we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Appellee filed her motion to dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction on December 12, 2024. More than ten days have passed, and

appellant has not filed a response to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

2 Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed

as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Guiney.