David Lee Daniels III v. Katina Snow

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 13, 2022
• Docket: 05-22-00873-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 13, 2022

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00873-CV

DAVID LEE DANIELS III, Appellant V. KATINA SNOW, CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY, ATWORK GROUP, NANCY DELGADO, JAZMINE WELLS CASTILLO, MARITZA DE JESUS, MARIA CARRILLO, AMANDA ALVEY, AND KR YOUNG STAFFING TX557, Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-05096

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal from the trial court’s August

18, 2022 dismissal order as it did not appear the order disposed of all parties and

claims or that the order was otherwise appealable. See Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v.

Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (appeal may only be taken from final

judgments that dispose of all parties and claims or interlocutory orders authorized

by statute). As reflected in the record, appellant filed the underlying suit against

Katina Snow, Child Support Agency, AtWork Group, Nancy Delgado, Jazmine Wells Castillo, Maritza De Jesus, Maria Carrillo, Amanda Alvey, and KR Young

Staffing TX557. The appealed order dismissed the claims against KR Young

Staffing, AtWork Group, Delgado, Castillo, De Jesus, Carrillo, and Alvey by

granting their Rule 91a motion, see TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a (concerning baseless causes

of action), but did not address the claims against Snow and the Child Support

Agency. Although we directed appellant to file a letter brief addressing our concern

and cautioned appellant that failure to comply could result in the appeal being

dismissed, see TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c), more than ten days have passed and

appellant has not complied. Accordingly, on the record before us, we dismiss the

appeal. See id. 42.3(a); see also Koenig v. Blaylock, 497 S.W.3d 595, 598 n.4 (Tex.

App.—Austin 2016, pet. denied) (noting no statute authorizes interlocutory appeal

from order denying Rule 91a motion).

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

220873F.P05

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

DAVID LEE DANIELS III, On Appeal from the 134th Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-05096. No. 05-22-00873-CV V. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, Justices Molberg and KATINA SNOW, CHILD Goldstein participating. SUPPORT AGENCY, ATWORK GROUP, NANCY DELGADO, JAZMINE WELLS CASTILLO, MARITZE DE JESUS, MARIA CARRILLO, AMANDA ALVEY, AND KR YOUNG STAFFING TX557, Appellees

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered December 13, 2022.

–3–