Glazer's Wholesale Drug Company, Inc. v. Alberto Ontiveros-Nieto

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 8, 2012
• Docket: 08-11-00376-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                           COURT OF APPEALS

                                                   EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                              EL PASO, TEXAS

GLAZER’S WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY, INC.                                     Appellant, v. ALBERTO ONTIVEROS-NIETO,                                     Appellee.	'	No. 08-11-00376-CV                          Appeal from  120th District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC # 2009-3424)

                                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the court on its own motion for determination of whether it should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Appellate courts generally have jurisdiction over final judgments, and such interlocutory orders as the Legislature deems appealable by statute.  See Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code Ann. § 51.012 and § 51.014 (West Supp. 2011); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1997, no pet.).  Glazer’s Wholesale Drug Company, Inc. is attempting to bring a permissive interlocutory appeal pursuant to Section 51.014(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code as amended in 2011.  Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(d).  The amended version of the statute does not apply to cases filed in the trial court before September 1, 2011.  Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 203, § 6.01; see Tex.R.App.P. 28.3 cmt.  A civil action commenced before September 1, 2011 is governed by the law in effect immediately before the effective date of the amended statute.  Under the former version of Section 51.014(d), the record must reflect that (1) the parties agree that the order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion; (2) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation; and (3)  the parties agree to the order.  Acts 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 1051, § 1, 2005 Tex.Gen.Laws 3512.  The trial court’s order does not reflect that the parties agreed that the order being appealed involved a controlling question of law or that the parties agreed to the order.  We previously informed Glazer of our intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and provided an opportunity for Glazer to respond, but we have received no response.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

February 8, 2012                                 ________________________________________________

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.