Cindy Stephens, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Daniel Stephens, Regina Morris, Daniel Clint Morris and Jacobs Morris A/N/F of Daniel Morris v. Carol Hunt Wootten, Mason McMurray, Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company, Elizabeith Marie Nelson, Nicole Renee Todd, Associated Credit Union of Texas, CU Financial Group

Opinion

Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 14, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-01016-CV

JACOB MORRIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF DANIEL CLINT MORRIS, DANIEL “CLINT” MORRIS, REGINA MORRIS, CINDY STEPHENS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL STEPHENS, Appellants

V. ELIZABETH NICOLE MARIE NELSON A/K/A BETH NELSON, NICOLE RENEE TODD A/K/A NIKKI TODD, ASSOCIATED CREDIT UNION OF TEXAS A/K/A ASSOCIATED CREDIT UNION A/K/A ASSOCIATED CU OF TEXAS A/K/A ACU OF TEXAS A/K/A ACUTX A/K/A ACUTX INSURANCE SERVICES, AND CU FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC A/K/A CU FINANCIAL GROUP A/K/A CU FINANCIAL GROUP L A/K/A CU FINANCIAL GRP LLC A/K/A CU FINANCIAL, CU FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE A/K/A CU FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, A SUBSIDIARY OF ASSOCIATED CREDIT UNION OF TEXAS, PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND MASON MCMURRAY, Appellees On Appeal from the 405th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11-CV-0724

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed November 4, 2013, denying appellants’ oral motion for leave to file a fourth amended petition. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001). This appeal is from an interlocutory order not permitted to be appealed by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (listing interlocutory orders that may be appealed).

On November 20, 2013, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is interlocutory. Appellants’ response was to request additional time to file a response to the motion. To date, appellants have been permitted more than 45 days to file a response, and have filed an additional request asking for an additional 30 days.

The record filed with this court reflects an interlocutory order over which this court has no jurisdiction.

The appeal is ordered dismissed and appellants’ pending motion to extend time to file a response is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Brown.