John F. Davis v. Farias Enterprises LTD.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00430-CV
John F. DAVIS, Appellant
v. FARIAS ENTERPRISES FARIAS ENTERPRISES LTD., Appellee
From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010-CVT-001822D3 Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 6, 2013
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
Appellant John F. Davis filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the trial court’s order
imposing sanctions against him, as attorney for the plaintiffs, for alleged discovery violations.
Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for appellate purposes if it disposes of all
pending parties and claims in the record. Id. After reviewing the clerk’s record, it appeared to the
court that the sanctions order was interlocutory and unappealable because the plaintiffs’ claims
against the defendants were still pending, and there is no authority permitting an interlocutory 04-13-00430-CV
appeal from a discovery sanctions order. See Texas A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d
835, 840 (Tex. 2007) (holding appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider interlocutory orders
only if statute explicitly provides such jurisdiction). Accordingly, we ordered appellant to file a
response in this court showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
Appellant filed a response and caused a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed. In the
September 3, 2013 supplemental clerk’s record was a notice of nonsuit filed by the plaintiffs. The
nonsuit was filed based on a proposed settlement agreement between the parties as to the
substantive claims. Based on the nonsuit, it appeared all claims and parties had been disposed of,
giving this court jurisdiction over the appeal from the sanctions order. We therefore reinstated the
previously stayed appellate deadlines. However, on October 8, 2013, a second supplemental
clerk’s record was filed in this court. Although that record contains a September 3, 2013 order
granting the plaintiffs’ nonsuit, suggesting finality for purposes of appeal, the second supplemental
clerk’s record also contained a motion to set aside the nonsuit and reinstate the case, which was
filed September 13, 2013. In that motion, the defendants asked the trial court to set aside the
nonsuit and reinstate the case because the parties were ultimately unable to compromise and settle
the matter. On October 1, 2013, within its plenary power, the trial court signed an order granting
the motion to set aside the nonsuit and reinstating the case.
Based on the foregoing, it appeared to the court that the sanctions order from which
appellant is attempting to appeal is again interlocutory and unappealable because the plaintiffs’
claims against the defendant are still pending as a result of the trial court’s October 1, 2013
reinstatement order. See Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d at 840; Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 196. Accordingly,
we ordered appellant to file a response in this court on or before October 21, 2013, showing cause
why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. -2- 04-13-00430-CV
In response, appellant filed a motion asking this court to abate the appeal. We denied this
motion on October 23, 2013, and in the order reminded appellant of the requirement that he show
cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We ordered appellant to
show cause on or before noon on October 25, 2013. Appellant has not filed a response showing
cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, because all pending parties and claims have not been disposed of, we hold
we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 196. We therefore dismiss
the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
John F. Davis v. Farias Enterprises LTD. (John F. Davis v. Farias Enterprises LTD.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.