Gary Friedel v. Ken G. Taylor

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 14, 2004
• Docket: 10-03-00259-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Gary Friedel v. Ken G. Taylor

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-259-CV

     GARY FRIEDEL,

                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     KEN G. TAYLOR,

                                                                              Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 02-5243

MEMORANDUM OPINION

      The Clerk of this Court notified the parties that the appellant’s brief was overdue in this cause and that the appeal would be dismissed if an appropriate response was not filed within ten days. The Court has received no response. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3.

                                                                   PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 14, 2004

[CV06]

      According to information provided by the parties, Julius Drew, Sr., filed a pro se lawsuit against Maria Caro, Israel Auto Sales, and the owners of Israel Auto Sales for damages he allegedly sustained as a result of an automobile accident Drew and Caro had. On November 7, 1997, the trial court granted the motion of Ruben Roque, d/b/a Israel Auto Sales to dismiss Drew’s claims against Israel Auto Sales and against Roque as the owner of Israel Auto Sales. The court dismissed Drew’s claims “against the Defendant alternatively referred to herein as Israel Auto Sales, the Owners of Israel Auto Sales, and Ruben Roque, d/b/a Israel Auto Sales.” Drew has filed a motion to abate this appeal because it “was inadvertently commenced.” He requests that the appeal be abated until he obtains a final judgment on the merits against Caro.

      Absent a statute making an interlocutory order appealable, a final judgment is necessary to our jurisdiction. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.012 (Vernon 1997); New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 678-79 (Tex. 1990). A final judgment is one disposing of all parties and all issues in the case. Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex. 1984). The trial court's dismissal did not dispose of all of the parties in the case; therefore, it is interlocutory. See Speer v. Stover, 711 S.W.2d 730, 734 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1986, no writ). Moreover, there is no statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal of the dismissal order in the instant case.

      Because this is an interlocutory appeal not authorized by statute, we have no jurisdiction over this attempted appeal. Because we have no jurisdiction, we have no authority to abate the appeal. Accordingly, we deny Drew’s motion to abate the appeal and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Cummings, and

      Justice Vance

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Opinion delivered and filed February 18, 1998

Do not publish