Felicia Nicole Jones v. Louis Vuitton, Mercedes-Benz of Houston Greenway, Toll Brothers, Mazda North American Operations

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: January 8, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-00867-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued January 8, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00867-CV ——————————— FELICIA NICOLE JONES, Appellant V. LOUIS VUITTON, MERCEDES-BENZ OF HOUSTON GREENWAY, TOLL BROTHERS, AND MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 75486-CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Felicia Nicole Jones, a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing

order, filed a notice of appeal from an unidentified judgment or other allegedly

appealable order in the underlying trial court cause. On November 25, 2025, the Court directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal complying with the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically, identifying the judgment or trial

court order being appealed. On November 26, 2025, appellant filed a “Notice of

Amended Appeal,” indicating that she was appealing a September 25, 2025 order.

Appellant’s amended notice did not include any September 25, 2025 trial court order

and stated only that she “[a]ppealed from dismissal of recusal order.”

Also, on November 25, 2025, the Court notified appellant that her appeal was

subject to dismissal because, based on the Court’s records, appellant was a vexatious

litigant subject to a pre-filing order. Generally, the Clerk of this Court may not file

an appeal in a civil matter presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing

order unless: (1) the litigant first obtains an order from the local administrative judge

permitting the filing or (2) the litigant is appealing from a pre-filing order declaring

the person a vexatious litigant. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103(a).

In her amended notice of appeal, appellant did not provide the Court with any

evidence that she obtained permission from the local administrative judge prior to

filing her appeal.

Appellant was therefore directed to file a written response, within ten days of

the Court’s November 25, 2025 order, establishing that the Court had jurisdiction

over her appeal, specifically, that she sought, and obtained, permission from the local

administrative judge prior to filing her appeal. On December 13, 2025, appellant

2 filed a “Response to Court Order [and] Jurisdiction Statement.” However,

appellant’s response failed to establish that she obtained the necessary permission

before filing this appeal.

We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a), (c), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Caughey, and Dokupil.