City of West Columbia v. J. Marcelino E. Cornejo Garcia and Wife Ernestina Rangel, and Children, M. C., J.J.C. and M.C.

Court of Appeals of Texas

City of West Columbia v. J. Marcelino E. Cornejo Garcia and Wife Ernestina Rangel, and Children, M. C., J.J.C. and M.C.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 18, 2016·No. 01-16-00139-CV·Published

Opinion

Order issued August 18, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Ernestina Rangel, and their minor children (Appellees) for lack of jurisdiction. We grant the motion.

The City of West Columbia initiated this appellate cause by perfecting an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. Thereafter, Matula filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s denial of its amended plea to the jurisdiction based on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Division of Workers’ Compensation of the Texas Department of Insurance. Finally, Appellees filed a notice of cross-appeal of the district court’s denial of their request for attorney’s fees in connection with a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a Motion to Dismiss that Matula withdrew.

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over final judgments. See Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 92 (Tex. 2012). Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides a narrow exception allowing interlocutory appeals under certain circumstances, including when the trial court denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental entity. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2015); Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. 2001) (noting “the Legislature’s intent that section 51.014 be strictly construed”).

Although the City of West Columbia is permitted an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction under section 51.014(a)(8) of the

Civil Practice and Remedies Code, this authorization “is not a vehicle which imbues the court with jurisdiction to address interlocutory matters outside the scope of section 51.014.” Waite v. Waite, 64 S.W.3d 217, 224 n.6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (holding court lacked jurisdiction to review interlocutory order awarding attorney’s fees in appeal of denial of temporary injunction) (citation omitted). As the motion to dismiss correctly notes, there is no authorization for an interlocutory appeal of either (1) an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction filed by a non-governmental entity like Matula or (2) the order denying Appellees’ request for attorneys’ fees.

Accordingly, we grant the unopposed motion to dismiss Matula’s appeal and Appellees’ cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal by City of West Columbia remains pending.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order issued August 18, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Ernestina Rangel, and their minor children (Appellees) for lack of jurisdiction. We grant the motion.

The City of West Columbia initiated this appellate cause by perfecting an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. Thereafter, Matula filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s denial of its amended plea to the jurisdiction based on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Division of Workers’ Compensation of the Texas Department of Insurance. Finally, Appellees filed a notice of cross-appeal of the district court’s denial of their request for attorney’s fees in connection with a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a Motion to Dismiss that Matula withdrew.

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over final judgments. See Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 92 (Tex. 2012). Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides a narrow exception allowing interlocutory appeals under certain circumstances, including when the trial court denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental entity. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2015); Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. 2001) (noting “the Legislature’s intent that section 51.014 be strictly construed”).

Although the City of West Columbia is permitted an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction under section 51.014(a)(8) of the

Civil Practice and Remedies Code, this authorization “is not a vehicle which imbues the court with jurisdiction to address interlocutory matters outside the scope of section 51.014.” Waite v. Waite, 64 S.W.3d 217, 224 n.6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (holding court lacked jurisdiction to review interlocutory order awarding attorney’s fees in appeal of denial of temporary injunction) (citation omitted). As the motion to dismiss correctly notes, there is no authorization for an interlocutory appeal of either (1) an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction filed by a non-governmental entity like Matula or (2) the order denying Appellees’ request for attorneys’ fees.

Accordingly, we grant the unopposed motion to dismiss Matula’s appeal and Appellees’ cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal by City of West Columbia remains pending.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd.

City of West Columbia v. J. Marcelino E. Cornejo Garcia and Wife Ernestina Rangel, and Children, M. C., J.J.C. and M.C., (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

City of West Columbia v. J. Marcelino E. Cornejo Garcia and Wife Ernestina Rangel, and Children, M. C., J.J.C. and M.C. (City of West Columbia v. J. Marcelino E. Cornejo Garcia and Wife Ernestina Rangel, and Children, M. C., J.J.C. and M.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related