Liliane Ndagang v. Ereyhon Denise Foster
This text of Liliane Ndagang v. Ereyhon Denise Foster (Liliane Ndagang v. Ereyhon Denise Foster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-26-00206-CV
Liliane Ndagang, Appellant
v.
Ereyhon Denise Foster, Appellee
FROM THE JUSTICE COURT PRECINCT FOUR OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 4SC-25-0141, THE HONORABLE RHONDA REDDEN, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Liliane Ndagang filed a petition for writ of certiorari1 from the
justice court’s default judgment rendered against her. This Court is obligated to determine, sua
sponte, whether we lack jurisdiction over a matter. Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado,
372 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Tex. 2012). “Jurisdiction over an appeal of a justice court judgment lies
in the county or district court.” Tejas Elevator Co. v. Concord Elevator, Inc., 982 S.W.2d 578,
579 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); Automania, L.L.C. v. May, No. 03-03-00592-CV,
2004 WL 852275, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 22, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Tex. Const.
art. 5, § 6 (delineating jurisdiction of courts of appeals); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 51.001(a) (“In a case tried in justice court . . . a party to a final judgment may appeal to the
county court.”). Additionally, as an intermediate court of appeals, our authority to issue writs is
1 Ndagang also referred to this as an “appeal” from the justice court’s default judgment. limited to writs of mandamus, writs of habeas corpus, and writs necessary to enforce our
jurisdiction. Compare Tex. R. Civ. P. 506.4(a) (“After final judgment in a case tried in justice
court, a party may apply to the county court for a writ of certiorari.”), with Tex. Gov’t Code
§ 22.221(a), (d) (detailing writ authority of intermediate courts of appeals).
On February 26, 2026, we notified the parties that this case appeared to
suffer from a jurisdictional defect. We requested that appellant respond to our notice by
March 10, 2026, and informed her that the failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this
appeal. Appellant filed a response on March 5, 2026, alleging that the county clerk’s office
refused to docket her petition for writ of certiorari and that she was not given notice of the final
default hearing in the original justice court case. These alleged defects do not vest this Court
with jurisdiction to review a justice court’s final judgment or to issue a writ against a justice of
the peace. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(b); Tejas Elevator Co., 982 S.W.2d at 579.
Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this cause, and we dismiss it for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________ Maggie Ellis, Justice
Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: March 13, 2026
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Liliane Ndagang v. Ereyhon Denise Foster, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liliane-ndagang-v-ereyhon-denise-foster-txctapp3-2026.