Cristin E. Padget v. David Trowbridge

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 16, 2022
Docket05-22-01126-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Cristin E. Padget v. David Trowbridge (Cristin E. Padget v. David Trowbridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cristin E. Padget v. David Trowbridge, (Tex. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 16, 2022

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01126-CV

CRISTIN E. PADGET, Appellant V. DAVID TROWBRIDGE, STEPHEN HOWARD, MIRNA BALOUL, MARC GILPIN, LARRY MCNUTT, SPACEE, INC., AND BUNNINGS GROUP LIMITED, Appellees

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-08337

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns This Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal because there did not

appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. We directed

appellant to file, by November 3, 2022, a letter brief addressing the jurisdictional

issue and cautioned her that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the appeal

without further notice. As of today’s date, appellant has not filed a response.

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction over final judgments and certain

interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)

(listing appealable interlocutory orders).

Appellant asserted claims against seven defendants. One of the defendants,

Spacee, Inc., asserted a counterclaim against appellant. Appellant appeals from the

trial court’s September 19, 2022 order granting a motion to dismiss filed by six of

the seven defendants. Because appellant’s claims against the non-moving defendant

and a counterclaim remain pending, there is no final judgment and this Court lacks

jurisdiction over the appeal. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

/Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

221126F.P05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

CRISTIN E. PADGET, Appellant On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-22-01126-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-08337. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice DAVID TROWBRIDGE, STEPHEN Burns. Justices Molberg and HOWARD, MIRNA BALOUL, Goldstein participating. MARC GILPIN, LARRY MCNUTT, SPACEE, INC., AND BUNNINGS GROUP LIMITED, Appellees

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees DAVID TROWBRIDGE, STEPHEN HOWARD, MIRNA BALOUL, MARC GILPIN, LARRY MCNUTT, SPACEE, INC., AND BUNNINGS GROUP LIMITED recover their costs of this appeal from appellant CRISTIN E. PADGET.

Judgment entered November 16, 2022

–3–

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

Related

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cristin E. Padget v. David Trowbridge, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cristin-e-padget-v-david-trowbridge-texapp-2022.