Kevin Marvin v. Malia Schneider

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 17, 2020
• Docket: 14-20-00338-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 17, 2020

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00338-CV

KEVIN MARVIN, Appellant V.

MALIA SCHNEIDER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 26th District Court Williamson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18-0595-C26

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal of an order granting a motion to reinstate under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3). The Supreme Court of Texas transferred this appeal to our court from the Third Court of Appeals. See Tex. Gov't Code § 73.001.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When an order does not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the order remains interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). No statute permits an appeal of an interlocutory order granting a motion to reinstate under Rule 165a(3). Instead, grants of motions to reinstate may be reviewed by mandamus. See McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Gen. Motors Corp., 296 S.W.3d 813, 817–18 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, orig. proceeding).1

On June 26, 2020, we notified the parties that our jurisdiction was in question and requested them to file briefs on the jurisdictional issue by July 10, 2020. We also provided notice under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a) that we might dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction after July 10, 2020, without further notice to the parties. Neither party responded to our request for briefing.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Hassan.

1 We would lack mandamus jurisdiction regarding the underlying case because Williamson County is not in our court of appeals district. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(b)(1) (bestowing jurisdiction on a court of appeals to issue a writ of mandamus to the judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district); id. § 22.201(d) (stating Williamson County is in the Third Court of Appeals District).