Pamela Montez v. Ahmed Said

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 27, 2008
• Docket: 04-08-00334-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00334-CV

Pamela MONTEZ, Appellant

v.

Ahmed SAID, Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007-CI-11657 Honorable Michael Peden, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 27, 2008

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellee has filed a “Motion to Dismiss Frivolous Appeal” and “Request for Just Damages,”

arguing that we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal and that sanctions should be assessed

against “Appellant and/or Olga Brown” for filing this frivolous appeal. We grant the motion in part.

Appellant’s notice of appeal states that she is appealing the trial court’s order of April 30,

2008, and that this is an accelerated appeal. In his motion to dismiss, appellee argues that the trial

court’s order is interlocutory and cannot be appealed at this time. 04-08-00334-CV

The trial court’s order of April 30, 2008, imposed sanctions against appellant and her lawyer

for abusing the discovery process. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 215.1(d) and 215.2(b)(8) each

provide that a sanction order “shall be subject to review on appeal from the final judgment.” TEX .

R. CIV . P. 215.1(d), 215.2(b)(8). According to the clerk’s record, no final judgment has been signed

at this time. We therefore ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Morales v. Bombardier, Inc., No. 11-04-00251-CV, 2004 WL

2610008 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2004, no pet.). Appellant failed to respond.

We, therefore, dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1

1 Although requested by appellee, we decline to assess sanctions against Appellant and/or her lawyer.

-2-