in the Interest of M.A.G. and Z.A.G., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of M.A.G. and Z.A.G., Children

DecidedFebruary 2, 2018

Docket04-17-00800-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of M.A.G. and Z.A.G., Children (in the Interest of M.A.G. and Z.A.G., Children) 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.

Bluebook

in the Interest of M.A.G. and Z.A.G., Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas February 2, 2018

No. 04-17-00800-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.G. AND Z.A.G., CHILDREN,

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017FLI001815C3 Honorable Victor Villarreal, Judge Presiding

ORDER Appellant Abelardo G. Gonzalez is currently an inmate and is acting pro se in this appeal. The underlying suit began with the Texas State Attorney General’s SAPCR suit against Appellant as a defendant for child support. Later, Appellant filed a third-party plaintiff petition against four governmental employees: the Honorable José A. Lopez, Ponce Treviño, Nicholas Lichtenberger, and Robert Garcia. On November 17, 2017, the trial court signed a default order in a SAPCR against Appellant on the child support matter. On December 4, 2017, Appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s November 17, 2017 order. But acting on its own motion, and within its plenary power, the trial court vacated its November 17, 2017 order and reset the trial for March 16, 2018. Later, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss by the Honorable José A. Lopez and a plea to the jurisdiction by Lichtenberger and Garcia. Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s granting the Honorable José A. Lopez’s motion to dismiss. Generally, “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The appellate record does not appear to contain an appealable order or final judgment. We ORDER Appellant to show cause within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). If Appellant does not timely file written proof as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See id. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court. _________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2nd day of February, 2018.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE, Clerk of Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas February 2, 2018

No. 04-17-00800-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.G. AND Z.A.G., CHILDREN,

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017FLI001815C3 Honorable Victor Villarreal, Judge Presiding

ORDER Appellant Abelardo G. Gonzalez is currently an inmate and is acting pro se in this appeal. The underlying suit began with the Texas State Attorney General’s SAPCR suit against Appellant as a defendant for child support. Later, Appellant filed a third-party plaintiff petition against four governmental employees: the Honorable José A. Lopez, Ponce Treviño, Nicholas Lichtenberger, and Robert Garcia. On November 17, 2017, the trial court signed a default order in a SAPCR against Appellant on the child support matter. On December 4, 2017, Appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s November 17, 2017 order. But acting on its own motion, and within its plenary power, the trial court vacated its November 17, 2017 order and reset the trial for March 16, 2018. Later, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss by the Honorable José A. Lopez and a plea to the jurisdiction by Lichtenberger and Garcia. Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s granting the Honorable José A. Lopez’s motion to dismiss. Generally, “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The appellate record does not appear to contain an appealable order or final judgment. We ORDER Appellant to show cause within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). If Appellant does not timely file written proof as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See id. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court. _________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2nd day of February, 2018.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE, Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of M.A.G. and Z.A.G., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-mag-and-zag-children-texapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack