Mary Jackson and Phillip Jackson v. City of Corpus Christi, John Doe, Jane Doe, Mayor Samuel Loyd Neal & District Attorney Carlos Valdez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 8, 2007
• Docket: 13-06-00700-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-06-700-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

MARY JACKSON AND PHILLIP JACKSON, Appellants,

v.

MAYOR SAMUEL LOYD NEAL AND CARLOS VALDEZ, Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of De Witt County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Rodriguez

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Mary and Phillip Jackson filed suit in DeWitt County against the City of Corpus Christi, John Doe, Jane Doe, Mayor Samuel Lloyd Neal, and District Attorney Carlos Valdez for "illegal seizure." The trial court granted a motion to transfer this matter to Nueces County, Texas. This appeal ensued.

Generally, appellate jurisdiction exists only in cases in which a final judgment has been rendered that disposes of all issues and parties in the case or when a statute authorizes an appeal of an interlocutory order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Section 15.064 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides the trial court shall determine venue questions from the pleadings and affidavits and that "no interlocutory appeal shall lie from the determination." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.064 (Vernon 2002); see Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. Clark, 38 S.W.3d 92, 95 (Tex. 2000). Thus, the law does not provide for judicial review of an interlocutory order transferring venue.

Appellees, Mayor Samuel Lloyd Neal and District Attorney Carlos Valdez, have each filed motions to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant's response to Mayor Samuel Lloyd Neal's motion fails to establish that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal.

We grant these motions and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. p. 42.3(a). Any other pending motions are also dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 8^th day of March, 2007.