Joseph Oran Broussard v. Roy Arnel

Opinion

Opinion issued May 21, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

responded to this Court’s notice, asserting that this Court had jurisdiction because the interlocutory order was appealable under section 51.014(d). Appellant stated that it had filed an amended notice of appeal citing to that statute. Section 51.014(d) provides:

On a party’s motion or on its own initiative, a trial court in a civil action may, by written order, permit an appeal from an order that is not otherwise appealable if:

(1) the order to be appealed involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion; and

(2) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(d). If a trial court has signed an order

permitting appeal from an interlocutory order, the party seeking to appeal must petition the court of appeals for permission to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(a).

The clerk’s record contains no order from the trial court permitting an appeal under section 51.014(d) and appellant has not supplemented the clerk’s record with an order. Therefore, appellant has not complied with the requirements for seeking a permissive appeal and this Court lacks jurisdiction over this attempted appeal from the interlocutory order signed on September 26, 2023. See Bosch v. Harris Cty., No. 14-13-00739-CV, 2013 WL 5503744, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 1, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.).

3

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-23-00769-CV ——————————— JOSEPH ORAN BROUSSARD, Appellant V. ROY ARNEL, Appellee On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 20-DCV-278570 MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 21, 2023, the Court issued a notice to appellant that the Court might dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order appealed was not a final, appealable order in that it did not dispose of all parties and claims. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Appellant