Dennis Lothar Daenekas v. Melony Thorpe
This text of Dennis Lothar Daenekas v. Melony Thorpe (Dennis Lothar Daenekas v. Melony Thorpe) 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.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-20-00557-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
DENNIS LOTHAR DAENEKAS, Appellant,
v.
MELONY THORPE, Appellee.
On appeal from the 152nd District Court of Harris County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva Order Per Curiam
After reviewing the clerk’s record, the Court questions its jurisdiction over this
accelerated appeal1 from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss
under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA). See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
1 Appellant’s amended docketing statement filed on February 3, 2021, indicates that this case is an accelerated appeal. ANN. § 27.003. Specifically, the Court questions whether the trial court’s order, which
dismisses appellant’s petition in its entirety but left pending the issue of appellee’s
attorney’s fees, is appealable. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(a); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
ANN. §§ 27.009(a), 51.014(a)(12).
Absent a statutory exception, an appeal may only be taken from a final judgment
that disposes of all parties and claims. See Bonsmara Nat. Beef Co., LLC v. Hart of Tex.
Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 385, 387 (Tex. 2020) (citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,
39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001)). While Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section
51.014(a) allows a party to appeal from an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss
under the TCPA, it does not allow an appeal from an interlocutory order granting the
motion to dismiss. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. 51.014(a)(12); Fleming &
Associates, L.L.P. v. Kirklin, 479 S.W.3d 458, 460 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015,
pet. denied) (per curiam) (“[T]he courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction over an
interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss under chapter 27 of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.”); see also Verde Energy Sols. LLC v. SGET
Duval Oil I LLC, No. 13-19-00163-CV, 2020 WL 6601611, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi–Edinburg Nov. 12, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Here, the trial court granted
appellees’ motion to dismiss Verde’s lawsuit under the TCPA. Because this order does
not arise from a denial of a motion to dismiss under section 27.003, when we strictly
construe the statute as we must, we agree with the appellees that we have no jurisdiction
over the appeal of this order.”).
Moreover, the appealed order here expressly omitted the issuance of statutorily-
2 required attorney’s fees. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN § 27.009(a) (requiring that
a trial court award “the moving party court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred
in defending against the legal action” if it orders a dismissal under this chapter); Trane
US, Inc. v. Sublett, 501 S.W.3d 783, 787 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2016, no pet.) (concluding
an order granting a Chapter 27 dismissal was not a final judgment because the order
“expressly leaves for future disposition the statutorily-required award of attorney’s fees
and sanctions”); see also Nguyen v. Pham, No. 14-19-00540-CV, 2019 WL 3788656, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 13, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing the
appeal because the trial court’s order granting appellee’s TCPA motion to dismiss “did
not address appellees’ claim for attorney’s fees, nor did it dispose of the claims against
the other named defendants in the underlying case”).
Neither parties briefed the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction. So that the Court may
determine the threshold issue of jurisdiction, appellant is ORDERED to file, no later than
August 27, 2021, a letter brief addressing the Court’s concern. Appellee may file a
response within ten days of the filing of appellant’s letter brief. If any party relies on
information not included in the clerk’s record, that party shall have filed a supplemental
clerk’s record containing that information. Should the Court determine it lacks jurisdiction,
the Court will dismiss the appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). The
Court may also dismiss the appeal without further notice should appellant fail to file the
requested letter brief. See id. 42.3(a),(c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed on the 13th day of August, 2021.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dennis Lothar Daenekas v. Melony Thorpe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-lothar-daenekas-v-melony-thorpe-texapp-2021.