Desiree Felicia Sapp

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 10, 2022
• Docket: 14-22-00009-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 10, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00009-CV

DESIREE FELICIA SAPP, Appellant1

On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021-76497

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed December 2, 2021. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final

1 Appellant’s application for temporary restraining order does not appear in the record. We do not know from whom appellant requested relief in that application. The appellees listed by the district clerk on appeal dispute that they are the proper parties. We have determined there is no proper appellee in this appeal. See In re Castellano, No. 01-07-00759-CV, 2009 WL 350628 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 12, 2009, no pet.). judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The order appellant is attempting to appeal is the denial of appellant’s application for a temporary restraining order. The denial of an application for a temporary restraining order is an unappealable interlocutory order. See Nikolouzos v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 162 S.W.3d 678, 681 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). We have no jurisdiction except to dismiss this appeal.

On February 15, 2022, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before February 28, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant’s response fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Spain.