Denise Stoute v. Robert L. Marshall, Medsharp, LLC, Marshall Shredding, LLC, and William H. Jewett III

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 5, 2023
• Docket: 04-23-00521-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-00521-CV

Denise STOUTE, Appellant

v.

ROBERT L. MARSHALL, MEDSHARP, LLC, MARSHALL SHREDDING, LLC, AND WILLIAM H. JEWETT III, Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019-CI-16836 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 5, 2023

DISMISSED

On May 30, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal related to trial court Cause No. 2019-

CI-16836 providing:

Notice is hereby given that Intervenor Denise Stoute has filed a request for a Writ of Mandamus to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio from the 150th Judicial District Court in Bexar County, Texas, appealing the March 28, 2023 Order denying Intervenor Denise Stoute’s Motion to Compel Responses to Intervenor’s Second Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants. 04-23-00521-CV

We understood this notice to encompass an intent to directly appeal the March 28, 2023

interlocutory order. On June 6, 2023, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why the appeal

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195

(Tex. 2001); Ne. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). On June 8, 2023,

appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.3. On June 21, 2023, appellant filed a Response to Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss for

Want of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure, responsive to both appellee’s

motion and this court’s order. Appellant explains she had filed the notice of appeal solely to give

notice of her petition for writ of mandamus, and states she has no objection to this appeal being

dismissed. Because appellant’s response, though not titled a motion to dismiss, makes clear that

appellant seeks dismissal of her appeal, we dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 42.1. TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant. See id. R. 42.1(d). We deny appellee’s

motion to dismiss as moot.

-2-